BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hockey is more athletic than swimming.

swimming is an amazing cardio-vascular exercise and with increasing effort will raise your heart rate and stimulate your muscles. It gives you a more toned body if done regularly and is also less stressful to your joints than other forms of exercise such as jogging. If combined with a land workout such as a run or gym session it will help move your blood through your muscles to help them recover. It also is an extreme work out on abdominal muscles. Aside from that, by making it seem like the body weighs much less than it actually does, swimming is the perfect alternative for those who are not capable of performing other types of exercises and activities. Individuals with a spinal cord injury, for example, are able to strengthen their muscles through swimming when they may not possess the strength to walk or in your case "play hockey". As you earlier mentioned, I quote "the player must learn to ice skate" do you think a swimmer must not learn to swim? A hockey player needs to control a puck, do you not think a swimmer needs to hold their breath? Control different strokes, and avoid crashing into other swimmers? As Strength: the arms and hips are responsible for propelling the body through the water and both are directly connected to the lumbar spine. A strong core will enable more energy to be transferred from the core to the pull and kick components of the stroke. A weak core will allow more energy to leak out, resulting in a less powerful pull and kick. Thus saying a swimmer must also have strength. As Agility: The stronger a swimmer is the more agility they have. Because swimming is built on as above "arms and hips", The more power and speed put into a stroke the more agile they become. As for stamina, in regards to your statement "A sprint in swimming wouldn't take very much endurance" I agree with you. But we are debating about this in the terms of a sport, not a night at the pool. In all actuality swimming would take just as much stamina as hockey as they are both a complete work out of the body.
Hockey is more athletic than swimming.

Well, personally I think that athleticism is defined as showing athletic prowess. Which would be displaying exceptional skill in athletics, which would take body and mind. However, we are not debating the definition of the word. So, I will use yours instead. "involving the use of physical skills or capabilities" - Hockey involves many more physical skills than swimming. In hockey the player must learn to ice skate in a controlled manner, which some may find difficult in itself. Once they've learned to ice skate, they must now posses the ability to control a 3 inch rubber puck on the end of a large stick. In addition to controlling the puck and their body, the player must also be aware of his surroundings to avoid being checked by another player. "as strength" - Hockey players must have strength to shoot a rubber puck, (with accuracy) at speeds of up to 106 mph. "agility" - Hockey is a much faster paced sport than swimming. A swimmer may have to swim fast, but a hockey player not only needs to skate fast, but additionally needs to be quick, and agile to dodge players of the opposing team. "stamina" - Some distance swimming events would probably take more endurance, but not swimming as a whole. A sprint in swimming wouldn't take very much endurance as the swimmer could be done in under a minute.
Hockey is more athletic than swimming.

Hockey is not more "athletic" then swimming. Athleticism is defined as the pertaining to athletes; involving the use of physical skills or capabilities, as strength, agility, or stamina. I'd like to point out that you stated you must be smart to play hockey and not to swim. Being athletic has nothing once so ever to do with IQ. It might take more to plan out, examine, and understand but that does not make it more athletic.
Hockey is more athletic than swimming.

First, I was completely unaware of the fact that we where debating on periods of length as far as the sports are concerned. Your title says that "Hockey is more athletic then swimming" not longer, not smarter. More athletic. Secondly. Swimmers need to know far more then how to swim in order to compete in the sport. And yet I still fail to see how what the competitors need to know has anything to do with athleticism, besides the apparent "this is how the sport works" Thirdly, endurance is defined as lasting quantity. Like you said, there are longer races in swimming and no, it's not as long as a hockey game. But with all do respect that doesn't make it any more or less of an athletic event then hockey. Oh, and just for the record, I've seen a couple fat hockey players, but I wasn't exactly aware we where talking about the shape of the competitors. In conclusion, your accusations are faulty. Your claims of endurance are correct. But that's about it. Of course any voter who's a hockey fan is unlikely to say that swimming is more athletic. But as far as I'm concerned; as far as athleticism goes, their about the same from the view of saying that their both sports, athletics events. All competitors need to be aware of the rules and what they are doing. The sports differ to a vast duration but are still considered as athletic events, so to speak not as popular as one another but yet curiously enough under the same category. ^.~
Is atheism better than Christianity

Not means the absence of (paraphrasing) and since you are not smoking something, that couldn't be a habit because a habit is something you do.I can believe that Big Foot doesn't exist; that is still a belief. So everything I say is true? Wow, thanks. So I will say that reason is better than faith; faith is good and reason is great.I didn't say everything you said is true.This is an added argument in the last round that reason is better than faith. This shouldn't be taken into consideration.Also, he dropped all of my arguments and didn't counter my second refutation. Therefore, voters vote Con.He has not met the burden of proof.
Is atheism better than Christianity

1: I'm talking about the human race, if you are disrespecting an homosexual, you are disrespecting a human logically. 2: I agree. Though I wasn't expecting to say much. 3: Atheists disbelieve the existence of gods, you can call it a belief, but then it would be the same as saying that not smoking is a habit, or not collecting stamps is a hobby. So everything I say is true? Wow, thanks. So I will say that reason is better than faith; faith is good and reason is great.
Is atheism better than Christianity

Christianity, on the other hand, ends up being biased many times towards our own race, one example is the disrespect to homosexuality, which is sad, because many times homosexuality is not optional. Homosexuality is not a race. Therefore, this argument has no meaning. Atheism is growing fast in many countries. This is not warranted, so therefore, this has no meaning in this debate. The denial of the existence of supernatural beings is not only a non-belief, it is also an attitude of being fearless from them and pursuing the truth. So atheists believe that there isn't a god? But they still believe something, so therefore it couldn't be something of non-belief. My opponent concedes to the definition of better, therefore this is a debate on which side has higher faith. My opponent specifically said that Christianity is made up entirely of faith and atheism is semi-faith and mostly reason.
Is atheism better than Christianity

I appreciate your acceptance and answer. Yes, if faith was bad, there wouldn't be many people with faith. But I remain with my claim, faith isn't totally accurate, so I would say that if faith is going intervene a lot on our senses, we are going to have more problems with understanding our own society. Also, note that: 1: Faith isn't being used as the only criteria to determine which "belief" is the best. 2: A moderate faith can be better than an extremely high faith, we are talking about qualities such as being extrovert or being tall, which are qualities that are bad when they are in an extreme amount. 3: Faith can be accountable as bad when on an extreme amount because of the example I said in the second paragraph, thus the fact that faith counteracts reason, and if it wasn't for reason, science would be a lot more poor today.
Is atheism better than Christianity

Thanks for this topic. I am a firm believer and will use this argument to win the debate.My opponent says, " Now, I won't deny that faith is good,".He then says, "atheist's purport will be more based on reason, and less based on a specific faith".Therefore, since faith is good, and Christianity is entirely based on faith and atheism is based portionately on faith and more so on reason, Christianity is better than atheism because better is defined by the free dictionary as "comparative to good." Vote Negative.My opponent has the burden to prove that atheism has more faith than Christians because faith is good as my opponent said. Only 1000 characters. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Is atheism better than Christianity

Atheism is growing fast in many countries. The denial of the existence of supernatural beings is not only a non-belief, it is also an attitude of being fearless from them and pursuing the truth. This results in scientific advances, such as the light bulbs that came from Thomas Edison, and in a better sense, since the atheist's purport will be more based on reason, and less based on a specific faith. Now, I won't deny that faith is good, but from far, religion isn't the only key to faith; it won't mean that you will be faithless only because you deny the existence of a god. Christianity, on the other hand, ends up being biased many times towards our own race, one example is the disrespect to homosexuality, which is sad, because many times homosexuality is not optional.
Organ Donation should be made Mandatory

Hi, I debate this as an impromptu topic and I would like to try it again. First round is acceptance, second round are arguments, third and fourth round are rebuttals, and the fifth round are conclusions. I define the following terms: Organ Donation - giving any part of a human body that can be transplanted to a different human Should be made Mandatory - everybody who can must surrender an organ upon death I hope to have a fruitful and thoughtful debate with my opponent!
The apostolic doctrine is the one and only true Christian doctrine

I accept.I currently attend an Evangelical Free church, but have been to a Baptist/Calvinist church, as well as a non-denomination church, and I go to a Lutheran school. The basis for my accepting the debate is the key phrase "one and only" true Christian doctrine. Pro has clarified this in the comments, saying that this essentially means that only those of the apostolic faith will be saved. I believe that the 'signs following' are not essential to the faith (though they are not wrong either). I believe that tongues are not the only sign of the Holy Spirit, nor are they necessarily a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I believe that Christians of many denominations are saved - including Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholics, and possibly even some Mormons (not important to this debate though). I also believe some from every denomation will not be saved, due to a lack of genuine saving faith.
The apostolic doctrine is the one and only true Christian doctrine

First round is preety much for acceptance/introducing your religion/ clarification however you are welcome to state your case early.Clarification on what i am proposing. I am proposing that the apostolic doctrine is the one true faith. I am mainly looking to debate a catholic or Baptist since there will be more clash and debate. These 3 religions are similar in the sense that they believe God is supreme and they believe in some sort of baptism at least. I believe that the reason so many people are atheist is because of the Popular catholic and Baptist religions. They have changed beliefs through ought the centuries and are even doing so now. A lot of there beliefs and interpretations of the bible actually ironically go against the KJV bible itself.Intro to what the apostolic doctrine isAnswer: There are several groups which call themselves "Apostolic." Generally speaking, these churches all seek to uphold or return to the teachings and practices of the first church. According to one of their early writers, the Apostolic Church stands for first-century Christianity in faith, practice, and government, "to make known world-wide the forgiveness of sins through the atoning death of Christ, the baptism in water by immersion; the baptism of the Holy Spirit with signs following; the nine gifts of the Holy Spirit; the five gifts of our Ascended Lord; and the vision called in the New Testament, the Church which is His body." As intimated in that statement, the practice of signs and wonders is an integral part of their doctrine. The doctrine of the Apostolic Church is similar to most evangelical churches. They believe in the unity of the Godhead and the distinctions between the members of the Trinity. Regarding salvation, they teach the need for conviction of sin, repentance, restitution, and confession for salvation. Like most churches within the Methodist tradition, they teach the possibility of a believer falling from grace. Where they differ from many evangelicals is in the Pentecostal teaching of tongues as a sign of Holy Spirit baptism and in their teaching that the ministry of apostles and prophets should never cease in the Church Age.This is mostly an accurate description of my religion.I will be using a argument I made 7 hours ago against another opponent. Qualifications to accept this debate 1. You have to be some sort of Christian (looking for mainly a Baptist or catholic even seven day evangelist) (my mom used to be seven day)Rules1. no counter plans2. Sources will mainly be scriptures (so in 7 point voting scriptures will be what counts as source, links or websites too but yeah scriptures as well)3. Come in open minded trust me in debate in real life its important to be open minded it's similar here as well.Pro burden= prove my faith is the one right way to God Con= prove I am wrong/defend their faith etc. Main goal is to disprove the resolution. If you are a different religion that's Christian that I didn't mention you can debate as well but looking mainly for the ones I did.
Students Should Be Required to Take Speech and Communications in High School

I would have to disagree with you because forcing someone to do something is wrong and in the end won't work no matter how you force it. I have major anxiety so if I was forced to speak in front of crowds I would be shaking like no other and I have before no matter how many times I had to speak in front of people it never got better. So saying that requiring a class wouldn't help anyone if anything people that don't like speech classes would find a way around it or skip class.
Students Should Be Required to Take Speech and Communications in High School

Students should be required to take a speech and communications course in high school since speaking to small or large groups of people is required at one time or another in almost every career path. If a student is thrust into college or work place situations where s/he is called upon to present ideas in front of a group and yet has not had the appropriate experience in such matters, s/he is likely to feel anxious, threatened or stressed. In turn, his or her delivery is likely to be negatively impacted; therefore, the overall message may be skewed. The consequences of an ill-presented message in front of colleagues, bosses, instructors, or peers could be quite unfortunate. Practical experience is the best preventative of future failure.
Emergency public announcements shouldn't be made through the medium of dance

Have you ever been to a contemporary dance workshop? If you have, you will have noted that the performers endeavour to convey all sorts of concepts through the medium of dance. Now, have you ever been in the situation where the police have driven past your house announcing some kind of emergency over a loudhailer? If the answer is 'yes' to both of the above then it must have occurred to you that the police could be better deployed elsewhere and the job of warning the public of impending disasters could be done by troupes of modern dancers instead. No? Just me then. Anyway, I think this would be a crazy idea because the meaning of the dance could be open to misinterpretation. To illustrate this point, let's consider the following hypothetical scenario: Hubby - Darling, look out the window, there's an impromptu street performance taking place outside. Wifey - Don't be silly, dear, that's not street theatre, that's an emergency public announcement. I wonder what message they are trying to convey? Hubby - Well, that girl was crouching down and then she suddenly jumped up and wiggled her fingers around. To me that is suggestive of the neighborhood volcano erupting...oh my god, grab the kids, we've got to get out of here... Wifey - No, wait! To me that movement was evocative the nuclear fallout following an atomic explosion...quick close all the windows and doors, there's obviously been an accident at the local intercontinental ballistic missile silo... Hubby - Hang on there, now she's writhing her body around and now she's doing a pirouette. To me that is reminiscent of a tornado ...oh my god, grab the kids, we've got to get out of here... Wifey - Just a moment dear, I would rather interpret that as the movement of a snake...quick, lock the doors, a giant anaconda has obviously escaped from the municipal zoo... Hubby - Just a tick, darling, now she's been washed away by a huge wall of water... Wifey - Oh! Of course, it was a tsunami! Both - Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! In conclusion, I think it would be best if emergency public announcements were not made through the medium of dance. Thank you. http://www.youtube.com...
Emergency public announcements shouldn't be made through the medium of dance

". . . it may be possible to teach dancers to express such concepts as "Run for your lives. Some frothing nutjob has stolen a truck full of high explosives and and a family-sized box of matches and he's headed your way" without causing any confusion. However, the number of dancers capable of being trained to this level, I suspect, would be very limited. " I have three rebuttals to this intriguing point. 1) Most disasters are much more mundane than my opponent's example, and therefore easier to communicate. This complicated sort of disaster is much more rare. 2) Not all of that information is necessary. It would be enough to communicate "Crazy man with explosives! Run! " and that's not too difficult. 3) We could adopt a national standard for dance language. RE: Contention 1 "So, when [the police] pass a deaf person's house they write them a note. " Do they really have time for that? Writing a note is a good deal more time-consuming than a quick little dance, and in the event of widespread disaster, rapid communication is essential. "So, no need for singing and dancing then. " Singing and dancing, while not inherently necessary, is far more efficient than writing a note for every single deaf person. And where will the police get all the necessary bricks from? "Dancers participating in modern dance performances already help the world by providing the opportunity for pretentious upper-middle class snobs to validate each others pseudo-intellectual opinions in environment safe from the type of ridicule that those comments would normally elicit. What greater reward for their efforts could they possibly want than that? " The upper-middle class are, surprisingly enough, a small minority of the population. Dancers who want to help their community should really help the whole community. I mean, the upper-middle class are the most in need of validating-pseudo-intellectual-opinions-in-an-environment-safe-from-ridicule-related help, but the other people are important too! *** This is a serious issue, and we need to treat it as such. In addition to verbal announcements, announcements in the form of interpretive dance are not only helpful, but necessary. We must support our dancers. Support our public. Do you want all deaf people to die because police write too slowly? I think not.
Emergency public announcements shouldn't be made through the medium of dance

It is an important issue, one that is no doubt discussed at the highest levels by politicians and national security officials around the world. Firstly, I will confess to being something of a philistine when it comes to contemporary performing arts and I, therefore, defer to my opponent's superior knowledge of interpretative dance and concede that it may be possible to teach dancers to express such concepts as "Run for your lives. Some frothing nutjob has stolen a truck full of high explosives and and a family-sized box of matches and he's headed your way" without causing any confusion. However, the number of dancers capable of being trained to this level, I suspect, would be very limited. Now, to address my opponent's first contention: "What about the deaf people? " He states that over 6.5 million Americans are deaf or have impaired hearing. How does he know this? Because they are registered. This means the police know who they are and where they live. So, when they pass a deaf person's house they write them a note. For example, in the event that a stricken satellite has fallen out of orbit and is projected to crash into a residential suburb, the police would advise most householders to evacuate by loudhailer, but when they come to a house registered to, say, a deaf old man, when they would write him a note saying something like: "You have got one minute to get out of your house. Do NOT attempt to take any of your possessions with you. This is the only warning we are going to give you. If you choose to ignore it you are a DEAD MAN. " Then they would tie it to a brick and throw it through his front window. Probably. So, no need for singing and dancing then. Next, to address my opponent's second contention: "Dancers love what they do. Would it not be even better if they could serve the public? " Dancers participating in modern dance performances already help the world by providing the opportunity for pretentious upper-middle class snobs to validate each others pseudo-intellectual opinions in environment safe from the type of ridicule that those comments would normally elicit. What greater reward for their efforts could they possibly want than that? I thank you.