BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The St. Louis Cardinals made a huge mistake in not signing a free agent hitter.

To rely on Molina, Holliday, Grichuk, Moss and Piscotty to all improve over last year, is a very tall order. This is also assuming that everyone else on the team has no decline at all. I have been a Cards fan since '85. Although I live in California, I go to at least 2-3 games at Busch every year. It really pains me to see that for the last 4 years, we had a good enough team to get to the playoffs, but fall short when there. Having an experienced power bat in the middle of the lineup makes a large difference. Pitchers have a natural tendency to pitch around power hitters in fear of giving up a HR. They will generally throw more strikes to the hitter immediately before the power guy in hopes to get him out and not put him on base. A power hitter changes the complexion of the lineup for the better. With the decline in HRs, the Cards offense has gone with it over the last couple years. It begins to make sense when you look at the players who have left: 2011 - Pujols 40 Hr/avg., 2012-13 - Beltran 25 Hr/avg., 2015 - Heyward 18 Hr/avg. This year, we have no one to replace Heyward. Basically, the 45 Hr/year average that Pujols put up is now gone. http://espn.go.com...
The St. Louis Cardinals made a huge mistake in not signing a free agent hitter.

While Molina is indeed 33, his statitics actually improved from 2014. He was healthier, and was still and all star and gold glove catcher. The same can be applied to Matt Holiday. He only played 73 games last year, but he still made his 1st all star game since 2012, and improved his batting average and rbis per game totals from 2014. Also, Grichuk and Piscotty will make up for whatever decline in numbers those 2 might have, since both are expected to have major increases in their stats. My opponent also states that Matt Carpenter should stop trying to get home runs every at bat, but in fact he got more doubles than home runs. Home runs account for 18% of his hits; comepare that to a power hitter like Chris Davis whos home runs (47/150) account for 31% of hits. Baseball Reference projects that Carpenter's batting average will incrase from .272 to .279. [5] This refutes my opponent's argument that Carpenter needs to focus on getting more singles and doubles. He already gets more of each than home runs. Jhonny Peralta also experienced an increase in offensive production. His batting average incrased from .263 to .275. He also got more hits and made the 2015 All Star game. Baseball Reference projects more of the same in 2016 [6].Brandon Moss also is projected to have an incrased roll with the Cardinals next year. He is expected to incrase his rbi total from 58 to 68, and his home runs from 19 to 22. His batting average and doubles are also projected to increase, while his strikeouts are projected to decrease [7]. Sources:5. http://www.baseball-reference.com...;6. http://www.baseball-reference.com...;7. http://www.baseball-reference.com...;
The St. Louis Cardinals made a huge mistake in not signing a free agent hitter.

Molina is 33. (1) Holiday is 36. (2) The pitching was good last year, but performed way above what they should have. The hitting was atrocious. Relying on young, untested hitters to carry the club is a recipe for disaster. (3) Carpenter should have tried to get singles and doubles more instead of trying to hit a solo home run every at bat, runners on base lead to multiple run innings. A solo home run is not a rally. That's why we had so many 1 runs innings last year (4). http://espn.go.com... http://espn.go.com... http://espn.go.com... http://espn.go.com...
The St. Louis Cardinals made a huge mistake in not signing a free agent hitter.

I will argue that the Cardinals did not need to sign a free agent hitter. The Cardinals are in good hand already, they have a good young nucleus of hitters that includes Randal Grichuk, Steven Piscotty, and Tommy Pham. Each of these players are expected to have much improved production in 2016 compared to 2015. The Cardinals also retain Matt Carpenter who is coming off of a career high 28 home runs and 84 rbis. [1] They have all star catcher Yadier Molina behind the plate as well. Kolten Wong is also a player who has a career high in batting average and in home runs as well. [2]. Also the free agent hitters market was very overpriced. Chris Davis signed for 7 years and 161 million, Cespedes signed for 3 years and 75 million, Heyward signed for 8 years and 184 million. When signing players to large contracts like that, the risk is ginormous. There's always the possibility of injuries and the possibility players don't live up to large contracts like those. Heyward is also only a career .268 hitter and doesn't even average 68 rbis in his career, and the last 3 years has only averaged a grand total of 58.6 rbis per year. That doesn't sound like a player who is worth 23 million per year. Chris Davis is also earning 23 million over the next 7 years, but again he comes with major risks. He is only a career .255 hitter and while he can possibly get over 100 rbis in a season, he also lead the league in strikeouts last year. He's a feast or famine hitter, and the possibility he doesn't live up to his contract is very large. And finally, there is Yoenis Cespedes. He signed a 3 year 75 million dollar deal with the Mets. While he is certainly a talented player there are also serious risks. First, while Cespedes had career highs in home runs and rbis last season, Baseball Reference does not project the same for 2016. Cespedes is only expected to be a .265 hitter and experience solid drops in home runs and rbis from last season (26 home runs and 88 rbis) [3]. Those do not sound like the numbers a hitter worth 25 million would put up. Thank you. Sources: 1: . http://www.baseball-reference.com... 2. . http://www.baseball-reference.com... 3. . http://www.baseball-reference.com...
The St. Louis Cardinals made a huge mistake in not signing a free agent hitter.

In 2015, the Cardinals won 100 games mainly due to outstanding pitching. The club was slowed near the end of the season and nearly removed from first place by both Pittsburgh and Chicago. The hitting, which was below average all season, got worse and the pitching deteriorated. This culminated in the playoffs when the Cubs won the series 3 games to 1. In the off season, Lance Lynn got a season ending injury, Heyward signed with the Cubs, Lackey signed with the Cubs and Jay was traded to San Diego. In return, the Cardinals got Gyrko from SD, signed Mike Leake and signed a Korean reliever. Lynn and Leake actually have very similar #s, so that is a wash. Lackey is superior to Oh in every way. Jay has injuries, but when healthy can bat .300 for a year. Gyrko can't even hit .300 in one game. So that leaves Heyward. No replacement. If you account for WAR, we lost 6 games this year because of Heyward alone. These games are now added to Chicago. Therefore, they should win 103 games compared to 94 for STL in 2016. We needed a prize free agent bat, or two, to recouperate those wins. Davis signed with Baltimore, Cespedes with NY and Upton with Detroit. The opportunity was missed and now the team will be lucky to make a wild card spot.
Neither States Rights nor Slavery caused the Civil War

"Krakow! Krakow! Two direct hits!" ~ Calvin in Calvin and Hobbes. Ron-Paul told me to fire the opening shots, right?I thank Ron-Paul for starting this history-related debate.Resolution: Neither States Rights nor Slavery caused the Civil War.As Con, I will be stating that states' rights and/or slavery caused the Civil War.DefinitonsAs Ron-Paul says in the comment section, he states that Civil War will be defined as the United States Civil War.I feel all other words should be self-explanatory.ContentionsI have none for right now, because if I start my arguments on Round 1, Ron-Paul will have the disadvantage of having one less round for debating. Therefore, Round 1 will be treated as an acceptance round to ensure fairness in this debate.I await Ron-Paul's opening shots, excluding my two "Krakow!" direct hits. I bet he must be bleeding by now.
There will be a One World Order ruled over by the Anichrist

I was giving an example. But Don't you think there are alot of Anti-Christ's in the world? Are you sure there's only one? Because I'm pretty sure Jesus said he will once day fight the Anti-Christ and I'm sure he meant alot of them. and he said you choose which side you want to be on. and that was Jesus side or The Anti-Christ side. Some people don't get what Jesus is trying to say to them. Most of the people on earth thinks that If you keep lying and keep asking god for forgiveness you'll get away with it, but If you shoot someone for no reason, you're going to hell, there will be no forgiveness. I barely trust anyone in the world. I only trust God and Jesus, because if you trust your family that might be a mistake because you might not be sure if they're devil worshippers or not.
There will be a One World Order ruled over by the Anichrist

I didn't say that our Presidents are going to be the Antichrist. What, or who, I think WILL be the Antichrist, will be someone with a strong personality and that everyone (or almost everyone) will love him. Maybe someone from the E.U. But he will be someone that will make almost anyone do almost anything he wants. Like the Bible says in Revelation 13:7 'and authority was given to him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.'
There will be a One World Order ruled over by the Anichrist

Personally, I'm an christian myself. But technically your theory isn't true. Because there's been rumors about President Barack Obama being the Anti-Christ, but I don't think that's true. Because Obama has too many people who oppose him and his policies. He won the election, but not by very much. and I believe the Anti-Christ will be much more popular and many more people will be fooled by him. and Obama is not good enough to fool that many people.
Should you force kids to be social

I don't think that you should force a kid to be social because it's there life and I think they should chose where to go with it. Also if you are an anti social kid, making them socialize can be really stressful and the last things that kids need nowadays is more stress. Many kids now days feel like they don't have any power and if they don't have any power, they will seek power and that can lead to some bad situations. The least we could do is give them a little control in life to help them.
Foreign Coaches on National Sport Teams

Hello all. This debate is on whether or not national sport teams (representing an entire nation on the international stage) should hire foreign coaches. I will be arguing against the resolution, and will claim that foreign coaches should not be hired for national sport teams. My opponent will argue that there is no problem with hiring foreign coaches, and the practice should be continued. Full ResolutionForeign coaches should be able to be hired to administer national sport teams, and represent them on an international stage.Definitionsnational sport team: A national sports team (commonly known as a national team or national side) is a team that represents a nation, rather than a particular club or region, in a sport. coach: In sports, a coach is a person involved in the direction, instruction and training of the operations of a sports team or of individual sportspeople. FormatR1: Acceptance ONLYR2: All Main ArgumentsR3: Rebuttal (no new arguments)R4: Final Rebuttal/Conclusion (no new arguments)This debate will comprise of extended, well-developed arguments. Each debater is obligated to follow the above-mentioned guidelines for round structure, or else the debater will automatically forfeit the entire debate. Formal decorum is a requirement.----------------I await my opponent's acceptance.
Foreign Coaches on National Sport Teams

Hello all. In the following arguments, I will attempt to articulate, to the best of my ability, how the hiring of foreign coaches for national teams should not be continued.ArgumentsC1: National IdentityThe fundamental purpose of a national team is to build a national identity through sport, and to unite the nation in support on the international stage. Therefore, it is vital that national teams, and the staff of these teams thereof, be comprised of players and officials which are solely from the respective nation.The inclusion of a coach from a foreign country in a national team defeats the purpose of a national team altogether; with a foreign coach involved with the national team, the team is no longer comprised of players and officials from the nation represented. Because of this fundamental dilemma, the hiring of foreign coaches for national teams should be discontinued.C2: RelatabilityRelating with players is a vital job for any coach. A coach must actively engage with the team to ensure success, and with national teams competing on an international level, it is crucial for the coach to retain a level of relatability with the players from the nation.With the coach coming from another nation with a different culture, the coach will fail to relate as much to the players as a coach from the respective nation. Because of this issue, foreign coaches should not be hired for national teams, for the purposes of performance and internal chemistry.C3: Lack of Domestic Support and GrowthBy denying managers from the indigenous nation to take charge of the national team, there will be little chance for domestic leagues, however small and insignificant, to feel supported and grow. With an indigenous manager, however, the league in the national team's respective country will be well-supported, and managers from the nation will be improved.With a budding domestic league, national teams will have a much larger pool to select from, both with managers and players, and by selecting managers indigenous to the nation, the domestic league will have a much brighter future.-----------------------ConclusionClearly, managers indigenous to the nation should be hired to coach the country's national team. Foreign managers defeat the fundamental purpose of a national team, and do not share the same level of relatability that indigenous managers do. Also, managers from the respective country, however inexperienced, may gain experience and prestige from their presence on the international stage, and will bring a bright future back for domestic leagues and their country as a whole.It is resolved that foreign coaches should not be hired for national sport teams.
Claim: the French-Indian War (by England) was justified

I hear you, but I will say this: Protestant countries of that time show a disturbingly elitist pattern in regards to who they conquer. Whereas other nations saw it in their hearts to win converts, like Catholic countries sent missionaries. Buddhists, etc. Protestant countries just thought it was fun to conquer, like for the heck of it. Denmark and England were known for this. If anything Pitt's conquering style matches that of the Scandinavian countries. We can even thank Scandinavian influence for the empire, because Pitt, being a Flemish surname, came from the Flemish people that immigrated to England. They were probably the only Germanic influence in England. The Anglo-Saxons didn't make too much imprint, the only exception maybe the Northeast of England. But the Flemish immigrated to all parts of England. Anyways, the claim that, "Oh other cultures did it," is really not true. There were peaceful peoples and tribes in history. Anyways, Pitt was a war general for an imperialist country. I suspect that he did all he thought he can get away with. In non imperialist countries, rape can happen, but it's general condemned. Germany wasn't an imperialist country, and there were a few atrocities, but the Germans condemned it. Spain wasn't really an imperialist country either. Yes they colonized, much like Germany, but any atrocities were condemned by the Spanish. I hate to break to you friend, but England and Denmark never really condemned their countries' atrocities. There was indifference so to say. While every leader of that time was like that, Pitt's boastfulness had very grave consequences. It led to a century or so of misery by the Indians and Irish, since Pitt the Younger officially was the one to annex Ireland.
Claim: the French-Indian War (by England) was justified

Thanks for correcting me about Pitt. He was prime minister after. But he has a lot of evil in his portfolio. He was a very rude man from what I can tell, always boasting about how England was superior to other countries, and wanting a war with France, and an ardent believer in expansionism. His son, the Younger, might be very well responsible for initiating the Raj, long before the official date of the Raj's beginning. Technically, power-hungry, the Younger wanted to take over India, so he ended a peaceful trade relation and replaced it with total conquest. As far as the French-Indian War is concerned, Pitt the Elder was a leader, and given the brutalities during that war, he seems like the type to have raped indigenous women and whatnot.
Claim: the French-Indian War (by England) was justified

There is no difference. Catholic Austria ruled over Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Northeast Italy and Czechoslovakia, subjecting the locals to torture and segregation. It was like the white minority governments in post-colonial countries like Rhodesia and South Africa, where there was a country ruled primarily by an ethnic minority (Germans) over an overwhelming majority (Slavs). Slavs had no rights, and only a core of the aristocracy that was intermarried with the Austrians was given any sort of adequate treatment. The same can be said for France's colonial possessions. They were ruled by a small minority of creoles, and the locals were used as militia and law enforcement to carry out the nasty jobs, while the French lived comfortably. The French tortured, looted, pillaged and raped their way across North Africa, and they were almost exclusively Catholic. Similarly, Portugal, another Catholic country, operated a colonial regime in Angola and Mozambique like any other. There was a ruling class of Portuguese, and the Africans were there as their servants. A modern example is Israel, a country that self-identifies as Jewish. The predominantly Islamic Palestinians are sidelined, being forced into what Noam Chomsky described on a visit as 'The World's Largest Open Air Prison'. If one was to go to Downtown Tel Aviv, one could easily mistake it for Los Angeles or San Francisco, but if one was to go thirty or forty miles inland, or keep on following the coastline, one would encounter living conditions that could easily be equated with some of the more sordid areas of Africa and India. Palestinians are subject to torture, dispossession and disenfranchisement at the hands of the Israeli persecutors, and conditions have been compared to the Warsaw Ghetto or the treatment of opposing tribes by the British. No apology has been issued, and it carries on. Persecution, genocide and torture occur in all cultures and religions; to divide them based on this is incredibly stupid.
Claim: the French-Indian War (by England) was justified

Here's a different. Protestant countries didn't commit genocide, like Catholics or Muslims did. But, and this is not to condone genocide, death is more merciful than torture and segregation, which Protestant countries often resorted to. Sure, they didn't go around exterminating a group of people. They just thought it was fun to take groups and torture them til they got what they want, and rape the indigenous people. Sure they didn't kill them, but torture was fun game for the English and Danish. Remember, the torture camps in India? Greenland? Cause Denmark had them too. Remember, you're right genocide was not committed by Protestant countries, but torture is definitely something a lot of Protestant countries did. And to be honest, they were elitist. The only country that might have had Protestant missionaries was Germany, and it ain't even a Protestant country. But there were Catholic missionaries. The major Protestant countries were elitist.
Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust

Greetings and good luck to my opponent. I hope the best debater wins. The title seems to be straightforward; however, I will use some definitions to clarify it: Military 1. Of or pertaining to soldiers, to arms, or to war; belonging to, engaged in, or appropriate to, the affairs of war; as, a military parade; military discipline; military bravery; military conduct; military renown. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) conï¿½scripï¿½tion –noun 1. compulsory enrollment of persons for military or naval service; draft. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) unï¿½just –adjective 1. not just; lacking in justice or fairness: unjust criticism; an unjust ruler. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) I believe that military conscription is unjust in many ways. First and foremost because it contradicts the beliefs and principles set down by our founding fathers: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of Happiness." - United States Declaration of Independence As you can see in this declaration of our unalienable Rights the founding fathers wanted us to be free men. Free men with the choice to follow their leaders into battle or to sit on the sidelines as anywhere between 35-45% of the citizens of the young revolution did. "Historians have estimated that approximately 40-45% of the colonists actively supported the rebellion while 15-20% of the population of the thirteen colonies remained loyal to the British Crown. The remaining 35-45% attempted to remain neutral." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Not until the civil war did our nation see a military conscription. Military Conscription was not the view of our founding fathers or our early leaders and while they don't have the only voice on the matter it is relevant to take their views into consideration as our civilization and our entire way of life is still based upon their beliefs and ideals. However besides the fact that Military Conscription is contradictory to the ideals of our founding fathers it has historically been unfair to minorities and impoverished people. The wealthy and well-connected (those who typically start the wars) are allowed to let their children escape the horrors of war by way of student deferments. Allowing their children to sit in such preposterous posts as the Air National Guard or if they are good enough they can just dodge altogether with no consequences. This fact puts the burden of fighting the war on the minorities and poorer folks. This validates the old Jean Paul-Satre quote that states "When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die." One can only conclude from this evidence that military conscription is unjust not only in that it violates our sacred right to liberty of choice, but in that it also unfairly targets the minorities and those in the lower class and allows those who wish to wage war to avoid it.