BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
hockey is better basketball

Thank you for your opinion."Firstly, from what I notice in both games, hockey requires much more skill."May I start off by saying you failed to say which game is more fun for the players or the fans. I'm going to go with the fans, so skill is not a valid argument. Skill would be for the players. "Secondly it involves more teamwork."You don't want to see teamwork in sports, you want to see a guy take it all the way and break a backboard with a dunk. Which looks more fun: I'm not even going to include the second one, the first one is that awesome.Now for my arguments:Fans want to see high-scoring games where people score constantly. An average basketball game is about 105-95 [1]. An average hockey game is 2-1 or 3-1, which isn't as fun to see. You tell me which sport you like better now. All of your arguments were that it was better for the players, but we are talking about better for the fans.[1] http://espn.go.com...
hockey is better basketball

Firstly, from what I notice in both games, hockey requires much more skill. It is much harder to control a small cylinder with a stick while wearing a lot of padding on skates than running while bouncing quite a big ball. Also, you need to use your entire body in hockey, sometimes you need to kick the puck, or catch it and lay it down. Also you need to score on a net that is almost completely covered by a goalie. Secondly it involves more teamwork. In hockey, you constantly pass the puck to your other team mates, while another team mate helps out by screening the goalie. When I watch basketball, All I see is people running around to get the ball, and once someone does, he just runs to the other side, takes a shot, and boom, 2 points instantly. Lastly, in hockey, you need to be physical, and be willing to lay down your body for the game. In hockey, you hit others for the puck, and you even lay down your body just to block the puck. In basket ball, if someone touches your arm while you shoot, it's a foul. Those are my points for now, I await your response.
hockey is better basketball

"You notice that fans like seeing sports with popular athletes."Hockey: Sidney CrosbyBasketball: Lebron James, James Harden, Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, Steph Curry, Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony, Tim Duncan, Brook Lopez, Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, Derrick Rose, Dirk Nowitzski, etc....You were saying?"Hockey players help out a lot, for example, Sidney Crosby donated his golden metal to charity."http://www.nba.com...The whole Spurs played shoeless once, dude."Also he makes amazing plays that involve teamwork and a lot of dangling."Common Clippers routine:Rebound by RedickPass to PaulPass to Jordan,Give it to Griffin for the dunk. Also, you only specified one player. Must I say that in overtime in hockey, a shootout, you're on your own with ono teammate whatsoever?!"This demonstrates how easy it is to get points in basket-ball, and how little skill it requires. Hockey has much less points because it is much harder and requires more skill."I'm gonna stop you right there. Basketball doesn't require skill? You try shooting a ball that is barely small enough to fit through a small rim. It's actually hard to play, the NBA just makes it look easy."In basket-ball it is non-stop running, what is the thought in that?"In hock-ey it is non-stop skating, what is the thought in that? Also, coaches substitute a player once every 3 or four minuets in basketball, which is more than hockey."Secondly, the fans are much more invested in the game. "NBA's Chicago: 22,000 per game http://espn.go.com...NHL's Montreal: 19,000 per game http://espn.go.com...Fans being invested in the game isn't always a good thing. It actually makes the sport worse when their fans start a huge riot in the middle of Vancouver!
video games are educational

Just because Video Games help with certain skills does not make them educational. If video games were educational, they would be straight up teaching you math or what ever it want to teach you. I know there are games like this, but these are not the games kids stay up all night playing. They are most likely playing Call of Duty or something similar. Games like COD are not educational. They might help with certain skills, but that does not make them educational. Call of Duty is just as educational as Lord of the Rings.
video games are educational

Video Games like movies can be educational, but I'm sure you are not going to watch Barney over Spiderman 2 (the 2004 one of course). My question to you is: What can you learn from Call of Duty? What can you learn from Halo? What can you learn from Half-Life? What can you learn from Doom? These are the video games most people play. Tell me what I can learn from them.
Our Youth Should Be Allowed Civil Rights

Children's civil rights are free housing and food. They are property until they are self sustaining. Its also kind of racist that you compared black people to children. This is not 1960, you can't do that anymore. All of the ills you mentioned that are happening to children exist because of lax parents. We need to crack down and take the reigns back. If you need your porch painted, by golly, johnny better pain that porch or he's sleeping outside. You also mentioned gays. Gays are created because of terrible "anything goes" parents obviously. You also claim no agenda but you made several instances where you are paraphrasing marx. You may fool all the libtardos on this site but you don't fool myself and the strength of our tea party. Children should only speak when spoken to. No one likes a rude punk kid who thinks he is too cool to play pop warner which I have coached for 30 years. I have see first hand what the marijuanas do to kids who inject them, who otherwise would never have picked up the needle if they had parents like I did. Civil rights is a gateway drug to communism. I rest my case.
Our Youth Should Be Allowed Civil Rights

I accept and will be arguing that we need to whip our children into line like we did in the good old days before socialists took over america. Where are the days where we had full control of our property. We had the choice to raise children, we had the choice on how to raise them. Are you going to put police in every home to flush out the "evil parents?" How could this be enforced? Children are so used to being told they are amazing. They get medals for finishing last or for losing. They should have those medals thrown on the floor. The sooner they realize life is about winning only, the better they are prepared. Children should also perform what is expected of them. They should cook and clean and only play with their knight rockinghorses and dolls (male and female respectively.) Also, speaking of which, stop cross-dressing your children. Stop making them queer. You people are terrible parents. Simple logic will expedite the process of unveiling the obvious agenda here. Communism -> Hates property -> Pro supports communism
Michael Jackson album Thriller is his best album

First off this debate is arguing which one of Michael Jackson"s albums is the best. The number of copies an album has sold determines how popular it is. If it sells a lot of albums that means a lot of people like it." How popular an album is does not indicate how good it is. Even if it sells a lot of copies that still doesn't always mean everyone that bought a copy likes it. Thriller is the musical equivalent of a movie like Titanic. It won a ton of Oscars and broke all box office records but that was not down to it being a good movie it was down to an enormous global marketing campaign, ground breaking special effects and a lead actor with a crazy following. Likewise Thriller was produced and marketed in a way no album had ever been before. It's video's created a new industry and the moonwalk stunned audiences. It had a huge marketing budget and became a global phenomenon. None of these things are relevant to the Album's quality. The songs are derivative of other genres it's a collection of unrelated lyrically meaningless pop by numbers tracks. "The Grammys shows all of the people who are the best in the industry deciding who is to win an award. If you win a lot of awards for one album that means all the people in the music industry like it too." It doesn't always. Thriller won awards the same way Titanic won Oscars because the Album had such a lavish production most people in the music industry had little choice but to vote for it. Michael Jackson's best album is Off The Wall. It created a new genre of music and provided the gap needed to get away from disco. The songs flow together as one piece of art from a naturally gifted artist who subsequently let achieving commercial success and notoriety become more important to him than creating music. Michael Jackson created Off The Wall before he became a cartoon character and it is the most honest and classy piece of work he ever produced.
Michael Jackson album Thriller is his best album

First off this debate is arguing which one of Michael Jackson"s albums is the best. The number of copies an album has sold determines how popular it is. If it sells a lot of albums that means a lot of people like it. The Grammys shows all of the people who are the best in the industry deciding who is to win an award. If you win a lot of awards for one album that means all the people in the music industry like it too.
Michael Jackson album Thriller is his best album

Contention 1 is an Argumentum Ad Populum. Watch this clip http://www.youtube.com... and wait for the 2nd thing Rachel brings up. The number of copies an album has sold is irrelevant to how good it is. By that contention the Backstreet Boys are better than Nirvana. Contention 2 see http://www.youtube.com... this is how much respect people have for grammy's. In fact I will wait to see your response before letting you know Michael Jackson's own opinion on them. Bring on round 2, were we might discuss such Gems as in "The Girl is Mine" Michael utters "I think I told you, I'm a lover not a fighter" --------------------------- I feel nauseous
I din't say it.

Since 'din't' is not a real word, the only dictionary that actually contained it as a word was the Urben dictionary. It is defined as: did not. The example sentence was: "No I dint!" - this backs up my interpretation of the word and therefore I urge voters to vote con! I am not noob swiping since I am also new to the site and you joined the site before me. Sources http://www.urbandictionary.com...;
I din't say it.

Since the title of the debate is, I didn't say it. I propose that the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that they did not say the word 'it'. If they can prove to me that they did not say the word it, then they win this debate. If they do not, then they lose the debate. If my opponent contests with their burden of proof then I will be happy to discuss this too since we have 8000 characters to do so. The definitions of the terms in the resolution are simple and no semantics shall be used. The undefined words (all of the words) should be interpreted using common sense. If you do not understand or cannot define a term logically or sensibly. You can refer to the Oxford diction ary by typing: "define ____" into Google.
Interrogators should have the legal right to torture terrorists.

I believe that the idea that torture is always wrong is a distorted moral judgment. Any interrogation method can be identified as torture. Take the "chinese water method" for example. It's not even a splash of water on the face. It's just a drip. But even a drip sustained long and relentlessly enough is torture. Interrogation and torture go hand in hand. An interrogation is inflicting pain or anguish in order to obtain information. Inflicting pain or anguish is torture. Lets say our government captures a terrorist that has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. Wouldn't the government have a moral duty to do whatever is necessary to get the information out of the suspect? Using violence to protect innocent people isn't morally wrong. It's self defense. In a hostage-taking scenario, where a wrongdoer takes a hostage and points a gun to the hostage's head, it is not only permissible but desirable for a police officer to shoot and kill the wrongdoer if he gets a clear shot. It is universally accepted that it is permissible to violate the right to life of the aggressor to save the innocent person. Therefore, how can it be wrong to violate an even less important right (the right to physical integrity) by torturing a terrorist in order to protect innocent life?
Interrogators should have the legal right to torture terrorists.

This is my first debate on this site so please bear with me. I believe that captured terrorists should be tortured to obtain information and here is why: 1. Interrogation Is Torture An interrogation is deliberately causing someone pain or anguish in order to extract information out of them. Deliberately causing someone pain or anguish is torture. In a general sense there is a thin line between interrogation and torture. They go hand in hand. Mind control drugs, sleep deprivation, good cop-bad cop techniques, and verbal intimidation are a few interrogation techniques that are currently legal. These methods are less severe but I would still, by definition, call them torture. If you are interrogating someone you are, to some degree, torturing them in my opinion. Therefore, the question of whether or not interrogators should be permitted to use torture is inaccurate. The question should be "how much torture should interrogators be permitted to use?" 2.How much torture do I think interrogators should be permitted to use? You can't kill terrorism with kindness and you can't expect results without expecting to get your hands dirty. I want a government that will do whatever it takes to protect its people. I honestly don't understand why this opinion is so unpopular. It wouldn't make us just as bad as the Saddam Hussein's and Osama Bin Laden's of the world. There is a big difference between torturing someone for say, being a homosexual, and torturing someone to protect innocent people's lives. It seems that most Americans either don't have the stomach for it or they seem to believe that sympathy for terrorists is somehow a moral virtue. 3. The End Justifies The Means Sometimes you have to do wrong thing for the right reason. Shooting someone with a gun, for example, is normally an ugly thing that is awful to think about. But if a police officer shoots someone with a gun in order to protect an innocent person we not only justify it but thank god that it was done. Why can't torture be looked at the exact same way?
Interrogators should have the legal right to torture terrorists.

Since my opponent forfeited Round 4 I have decided to use my Round 5 statement to respond to an argument made against torture by a member named "meespr" on the comments page. "meespr" states in his argument that torture doesn't work. He says the idea that it does work is flawed logic and that there is almost no confidence placed in information gained from torture because suspects will just make something up to get you to stop hurting them. First of all, interrogators wouldn't risk wasting time making a move unless they felt that the suspect was credible. They could ask the suspect to provide details (which they could corroborate) to prove that the suspect is telling the truth. Second of all, as I pointed out in Round 1, interrogation is torture. An interrogation is causing someone pain or anguish in order to extract information out of them. Something causing pain or anguish is torture. Why don't suspects just make things up when they are subjected to legal interrogation/less severe torture methods? Sleep deprivation is a legal interrogation/less severe torture method. Why don't suspects just make something up to make sleep deprivation stop? Third of all, torture wouldn't need to be outlawed if it didn't work because interrogators wouldn't be compelled to use it if it didn't work. According to Wikipedia "Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries; however, Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture." Why would interrogators, people who are trained and certified at extracting information, in 81 different countries, be willing to break the law, and risk being put in prison to use a method that doesn't work?
Interrogators should have the legal right to torture terrorists.

"Falsely accused and tortured people does not prove that torture should be outlawed." No offense to my opponent, but, there is a computer screen in my way from hitting him upside the head and telling him to "Wake UP!!!" He stated that the falsely accused and tortured people does not prove that torture should be outlawed. Well then, let's just all go up to people we don't like and say "I don't like you, IT'S TIME FOR TORTURE!" "Also, "The Rack" having a 65% death rate doesn't prove that torture shouldn't used for information. All it proves is that "The Rack" is an inferior interrogation technique because it results in lost information 65% of the time." He then further states that "The Rack" having a 65% death rate only proves that information is lost 65% of the time. While this might hurt my decorum points, this MUST be said. Why is my opponent referring to dead innocent people as "Information that is lost"? I consider this morally wrong and eccentric. "I'm well aware of the fact that torture is violent." So why are we allowing it? "I don't understand why my opponent described the process of "Waterboarding", "The Rack", and "Chinese Water Torture" for me." To contest your 1st argument that torture was humane. "I just believe that the end result of protecting innocent people justifies the means of violence." The same was said about the war in Iraq by George W. Bush, and look where that got us. We killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians and only 45,000 militants. Hmmmm. It seems to me that in that case killing terrorists was more important than the civilians. "But when a police officer shoots someone with a gun to protect an innocent person we not only justify it but thank god that it was done." A police officer's code of conduct always states, "Protect yourself first, then subdue the criminal, secure those in danger around you, NEVER engage a foe unless the OFFICERS life is in danger or the foes life is in danger." Furthermore, what if the criminal has a gun to the head of an innocent civilian. According to a Yale Study done on November 21, 2008, called "Reaction Times" it showed that the gunman will kill the victim before the cop's bullet hits the foe. Therefore, if the cop shoots, 2 people die instead of one. While I agree with you that protecting others should come first, I must disagree that we should just torture the hell out of people that may be innocent, just to find out "Oh, wait. We got the wrong guy. Sorry, dude. We promise not to do it again." This happened more times than we actually caught REAL terrorists. As a matter of fact, at airports, Homeland Security Guards have the right to detain and interrogate random and suspicious suspects. Even I was pulled aside on my trip D.C.. Giving them the right to torture every person that they think is a terrorist is completely derogatory and morally wrong. Therefore, I urge a CON ballot on this topic. Thank you all.
Interrogators should have the legal right to torture terrorists.

I don't understand why my opponent described the process of "Waterboarding", "The Rack", and "Chinese Water Torture" for me. I'm well aware of the fact that torture is violent. I just believe that the end result of protecting innocent people justifies the means of violence. I pointed out in round 1 that shooting someone with a gun, like torture, is normally an ugly thing that is awful to think about. But when a police officer shoots someone with a gun to protect an innocent person we not only justify it but thank god that it was done. The reason for that is you can't have it both ways. If you want to protect innocent people from wrongdoers you're going to have to get your hands dirty. Also, "The Rack" having a 65% death rate doesn't prove that torture shouldn't used for information. All it proves is that "The Rack" is an inferior interrogation technique because it results in lost information 65% of the time. Falsely accused and tortured people does not prove that torture should be outlawed. People have been falsely convicted and put in prison before. Does that prove that prison shouldn't exist? Mistakes happen and the only thing it might prove when they do is a need for a better screening process.
Columbus Day in the United States of America

I will begin my rebuttal on each of your four points. 1. I assume that for your first point you suggest that Columbus' discovery was a positive thing for the world because of all of the effects of the Columbian Exchange. The Columbian Exchange, however, did much more than strengthen European economies. There were many negative effects of it as well. If you attribute the supply of new products and economic opportunity to Columbus, the following parts of the Columbian Exchange must also be taken into account: - Smallpox was a deadly disease brought from the Old World to the New World as part of the Colombian Exchange. Native Americans never developed immunity to the disease, so huge numbers of them were wiped out. The population of North America fell by at least 90% due to diseases. By starting contact between Europeans and Native Americans, Columbus was indirectly responsible for these casualties. Measles, Influenza, Chicken Pox, and Malaria also were spread to the New World. - The disease exchange was damaging to the Europeans as well. Syphilis came on Columbus' ships when he returned to Europe. Although it was already present it Europe, the new American version was more deadly because it could be transmitted sexually. Syphilis later spread to Africa and Russia. The Columbian Exchange was very significant on the world, but it is not a reason to celebrate Columbus' voyages. If anything, it is another reason why Columbus should not be remembered as a hero. 2. I agree that Columbus set off a "chain reaction" that led to the creation of the United States, but that was just one of the many consequences of his voyage. Some were good, some were bad. It would be historical bias if he was only remembered for the positive outcomes of his actions. Columbus Day only honors and celebrates Columbus' voyages, it doesn't do justice to the other side of the story. 3. I agree that Columbus had a world-changing voyage, but just because a historical event is important doesn't mean that it should be honored with a holiday. 4. If the day celebrates the discovery, not the man, then why is it called Columbus Day instead of Discovery Day like it is in Haiti and the Dominican Republic? Regardless of the name of the holiday, I believe that neither Columbus nor his voyages should be cause for celebration. Thank you for reading, and I'm looking forward to your response to my points from round 1 and 2. After that, round 4 will serve as both a conclusion and as an opportunity for further expansion on the points already stated, if necessary. http://public.gettysburg.edu... http://thecolumbianexchange.weebly.com...