BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Babe Ruth in the modern era of baseball

Lifestyle: There is no evidence that he would not indulge in these activities in the modern era. He was a person who grew up living a bad life, so much that he was put into a reformatory at age seven. I am saying that modern age of not, Ruth grew up living a "rough" lifestyle, as he put it. He was known to have a personality of loving kids and not be the healthiest person. It was who he was so in the modern era, they might be different activities, but based on Babe Ruth as a person one must assume he would do the same. A gym is a gym in every era. Babe Ruth is Babe Ruth in every era. He did not go to the gym when he was alive so why would he in this day and age. Babe Ruth was not phased by negative reviews of who he was. If he was, he would not have punched an umpire and gotten suspended. Also, he would not have gone barnstorming, which was illegal and led to him being suspended. If Ruth did not do things because the media would not like it, he would not have thrown dirt on an umpire before chasing a heckler in the crowd and then get stripped of the captaincy. Babe Ruth was against authority and that was who he was. Players: No, it does not imply that. There are reasons as to why fewer teams on fewer athletes does not mean they are the elite players of the nation. For example, segregation. Also, the manager/owner/scout is an idiot. Maybe the scouts do not travel to all parts of the country. The owners are cheap and do not want to spend the money. You are making an assumption and is not true. Baseball expanded along with country and the world so we are now simply getting players from everywhere. 1. What are you saying, that if Ruth had perfectly rounded baseballs he would have hit more home runs? 2. Well we may not have spit balls, but there motions were like that of the slider and splitter, and they did not have them. Both eras made that ball move, just in different ways. 3. The parks adjusted to the style of play. At the old Yankee Stadium, the wall used to be past Monument Park. Since the re-modeling of the stadium, only one player has hit the ball over that wall past Monument Park. They adjusted to accommodate the game in general. The pitching also got better through those years. There were not too many players the size of Ruth in his day. None that I can think of. I see no reason to think Ruth would compensate to meet expectations, no matter what era.
Babe Ruth in the modern era of baseball

I will start with his case, then signpost my outline for further discussion. Lifestyle My opponent is assuming all things constant. There is no evidence that if Babe Ruth were playing in this era, that he would indeed indulge in such activities. In his era that lifestyle obviously went unchecked. In this era, there are a number of checks and balances to discourage such behaviors. Some of these include negative media publicity, assistant coaches, and personal trainers. My opponent does not take into account that all of Ruth's previous behaviors were a personal choice, he could have just as easily chosen to hit the gym everyday and maintained a much better balance of diet and rest. Players Fewer teams with fewer athletes actually implies that the players receiving contracts were among the elite in the nation. More teams with more players tends to water down the aura of eliteness. I concur that the more pitches a batter sees allows him to become more familiar with the pitcher. Fats forward to the modern era of baseball and we see assistant coaches with pitching charts that predict the pitch selection, velocity, and location of pitcher tendencies. Hitting coaches simulate these pitches in batting practice. Many great hitters still do not face all of the great pitchers due to being in either the AL of the NL. Even interleague play doesn't accomodate some of the matchups I personally would love to see. Finally, the burden of proof remains with the Affirmative throughou tthe debate. The negative's burden of rejoinder is merely to clash with the affirmative. Moving on to my points which I shall expound upon later. 1. In the former era, there was an inconsistency in the types of baseballs used. In this era, the balls are regulated. 2. In the former era, pitchers could alter a ball. Again this is now better regulated. 3. As homeruns became increasingly popular, ballparks became increasingly smaller. During Ruth's era, homeruns did not enjoy the same hoopla that fans now go to the ballpark to see. 4. Hitters are able to adjust to the pitching they see. Babe Ruth was a very talented baseball player, poor habit choices notwithstanding. Similarly, many players today indulge in unhealthy habits, yet they compensate to meet expectations. There is no reason to think that Ruth would not compensate as well. He was a popular ballplayer who was loved by the fans. Finally, every good ballplayer's skills diminish with age. Most recently, Sammy Sosa, Ken Griffey Jr. , and Roger Clemens all had to leave the game they loved so dearly. For these reasons I respectfully request a negative ballot. Thanks
Babe Ruth in the modern era of baseball

Thank You 1. His lifestyle: Babe Ruth, off the field, lived a very unhealthy lifestyle. First, he smoked, which would eventually lead to throat cancer and death. Second, a majority of his meals consisted of up to twelve hot dogs, with him once going as high as eighteen. Third, he drank, according to many reports, too much beer to go along with his hot dogs. Ruth was in such poor shape that in his later years, he hired a personal trainer to help get him into shape to play. In the modern era, players do everything humanely possible to be in the best shape possible. Strict diets, workout sessions, and sleep among many. Babe Ruth would not be fit to keep up with these current players as he did in his era. 2. Players: There were less teams and less players in Ruth's era. Walter Johnson has been said to have been the hardest thrower of his era, yet historians only project him to have thrown around ninety miles per hour. Ty Cobb once said that the only way he could be Johnson was to lean over the plate and try to get hit due to Johnson not liking to hit people. With that being the hardest thrower and modern pitcher reaches the hundreds, it seems highly unlikely that Ruth could catch up to a pitch of that speed. Any person with knowledge in baseball will tell you that seeing more pitches gives an advantage to the hitter. In Ruth's era, there were less teams which meant less pitchers. To add to that, pitchers would pitch more frequently on shorter rest which increases the number of times you see a pitcher and will thus give the hitter an advantage. In the modern age, with thirty teams to go along with a five man rotation, the best chance you have for seeing a pitcher twice is if they are in your division. In the modern age, if you are a good player, you will get a shot to play baseball. In Ruth's era, baseball was segregated and some of the best players never versed each other. For example, Satchel Paige never faced Babe Ruth. The burden of proof is now on you to show how Ruth could overcome all of that and still put up the same numbers he did when he played.
Babe Ruth in the modern era of baseball

Babe Ruth is considered by many baseball experts to be one of the best to have ever stepped on the field. He set many records, including home runs in a season and all time, Yankee record for both career average and highest average in a season, as well as being as winner of the Triple Crown. Many believe that is Ruth played in the modern era, he would have hit over one thousand home runs. However, I believe that in he modern era of baseball, Ruth's statistics would not have been as staggering as they currently are.
The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity

I am sorry that I did not provide proper directions to were exactly I found the information on the revenue of both Pepsico and Coca Cola. your comments on how the revenue of a corporation does not go directly to the government is true. However, a percentage of the revenue made by any corporations does go to the government through income tax. Coca Cola paid 25% of their income last year, around 1 billion 4 hundred million dollars. Pepsico paid 27% of their income, around 15 billion 6 hundred million dollars. while i'm here, I might as well as mention that Macdonalds paid around 70 million in income taxes only four months ago. I will give more detailed instructions on how to get to my sources. The income tax I found for both Pepsico and Coca Cola was found on nerdwallet.com, although quite frankly, I just Googled the income tax and this was one of the results, but they seem to correspond with other articles I've read. I found MacDonalds income taxes on Google finance, from there you type in NYSE:MCD. It will then provide you with any financial information on Macdonalds that you would need. Where, might I ask, did you find the information saying obesity has caused 100 billion dollars in damage? To my statement of " you must have will of your own." Is quite relevant. Contrary to what some people would say. The government has already taken initiatives to try and lower the obesity rate through information campaigns. They have specifically targeted schools and younger children. If you go to a public school, you know what i'm talking about. The children there have been told dozens of times about the dangers of obesity. They are aware of the health risks involving obesity. Most of them even know how to prevent, or at least combat, obesity. However, only a small minority of these children really take these lessons to heart. Most of them continue still to drink pop every day. A lot of them still have Macdonalds every week, even though they know it's bad for them. The same could be said for adults. You must then ask why these children keep going back to the things that they know are causing so much harm to their bodies. The answer is obvious, its addiction to these materials. No government has ever dissuaded an addict to stop doing what is harmful to them. They may have provided information on why the material is harmful, but the addict will continue going back for more and more of the product until they will themselves break the addiction, or they die. The government cannot provide will, only information. It is completely up to the addict of weather or not they can break the addiction.
The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity

To further clarify my point, I will refute all of con's arguments. Con's argument states that eating is a natural process, and that by regulating quantity, there will be no evident outcome. However, this is not relevant to my argument, as I never stated that the government should regulate the quantity you eat. I stated that the government should pass legislation to dissuade the general public from over-eating. It is natural to buy two 16 oz drinks if you want a 32 oz drink. It is not natural to buy a 32 oz drink if the price jumps 25%. For example, when a tax was imposed in Denmark, it showed that butter consumption dropped. [1, pg. 17] Con argues that my statement on economic difficulty is unwarranted, and presents counter evidence. However, when I went to Con's source, I could find no such information after 15 minutes of searching. However, to refute your argument, consider the following. There is a very big difference between the economy, and the revenue of a single company. When a company makes profit, that profit goes towards the company, not the government. When a company does well, it pays it's employee's well. Which in turn stimulates the economy. This stimulation however, is negligible compared to the damaging affects obesity puts on the government. In an above source, I gave merit to the fact that obesity can put as much as $100 billion of stress on the government. The stimulation an economy receives from a couple thousand prosperous employees does not make up for $100 billion in expenses. Finally, Con states it is not within government bounds to tell it's citizens what to do. I say these arguments are unwarranted, as Con provided no reasoning. The statement "you must have some will of your own" is irrelevant, because government intervention is not taking away certain rights, or abilities. Government intervention is dissuading the large population from unhealthy habits, which lead to obesity. [1]http://www.irishheart.ie...
The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity

I have viewed the pro sides arguments and points of how he related obesity to smoking and how government intervention lowered the rates of smokers in this nation and I then present these arguments We do not need smoking to live, however, we do need food to live. Now obviously nobody thinks that a Twinkie is breakfast, but there is the fact that eating comes more natural to people. smoking cigarettes for most people only started around 18 or 21 years old. Eating however, people have been doing that their entire lives and feel that it natural and normal to continue doing so in what ever amount that they feel is necessary to them. Therefore if you were to try and regulate what these people could consume and how much of it they could consume it would result in people simply ignoring these laws. Sure, you could pass a bill saying that you can't have a cup any bigger then a 16 oz. but do you really think people are going to let that stop them from what they feel is natural. They may just get two 16 oz. cups and drink'em both. As crazy as it sounds I have seen it happen. An argument that you put forward saying that nations that have a high obesity rate often suffer from economic trouble because of it is quite frankly false. As evidence I will point to two soda corporations that have a standing in all of the nations that you have mentioned starting with Coca Cola. Coca Cola made over 35 billion dollars last year. You can find this information on the businessinsder.com. Pepsi-co ( that includes Mountain dew) made nearly 58 billion dollars. These soda corporation produce an unhealthy product which does contribute to the obesity rate however, are booming in profits. Your argument of economic problems being related to obesity are invalid, and if anything, obesity helps an economy. And finally, my last argument against government intervention is, it is no the government job to say what we can and cannot eat. you must have some form of will on your own.
The Government has a Responsibility to Combat Obesity

And thank you for accepting! As side pro, I will be arguing that obesity is a serious problem that requires a solution, and government intervention is the answer. First, we must define what obesity is. Obesity is a growing problem in countries such as Canada, the U.S. Australia, and the U.K. [1] When a person is obese, not only are numerous health problems a direct result, [1] it causes a strain on economies where healthcare is public. [2] In summary, obesity is an extreme problem, damaging to health and the country's economy. It is obvious that this problem must be solved, so then the question falls to what action should be taken. Pro's side of the argument suggests government intervention. To reinforce this, I will use the example of tobacco smoking. Smoking cigarettes irrefutably is the cause of many illness, ranging from heart failure to lung cancer. Yet it was a growing trend for a large part of the 20th century. (Due to lack of information.) When information was present that showed cigarettes were damaging, the public refused to stop the habit. It was only when the government intervened, that things started to change. They raised the tax on cigarettes, which raised the price. They also began lengthy education programs in school, with the aim of education children on the horrible affects. [3] As a result, cigarette smoking has been on the decline since, and with it, many types of illness. In summary, government intervention was the solution for the national crisis which was smoking; individual intervention did not result in the decline of smoking. The above argument can be related to obesity as well. Information is now being shown on just how damaging being overweight really is. Yet, as of 2014, obesity is on the incline. A government is morally responsible to act in the best interest of it's society. That means introducing taxes, advertising programs, and health programs to reduce obesity. [1]http://www.worldometers.info... [2]http://www.yaleruddcenter.org... [3]http://www.euro.who.int...
The United States was NOT founded on Christian values.

It seems to me that you misunderstand the topic or have not provided any evidence for your claim. I will allow you to further explain your argument in this final argument. This is to say that a singular quote or statement does not constitute a full defense. For my closing statement; I believe I have fully proven that we are not a country founded on the beliefs of Christians, however to the contrary a more secular foundation. Whereas, the nations founders did not proclaim any religion as governing over the people. Thank you and may the best arguments win. Innkeep
The United States was NOT founded on Christian values.

The first ammendment- I said that he US was founded on Christian values, not that the founding fathers intended forit to be a religious nation. washington- Yes, people change their beliefs, in some letters Thomas Jefferson seemed likjke an agostic but in others he was a deist. Either way, this continent was conquered by Christioan savages, and it was a colony of a Christian nation - Brittan, and they had many beliefs which were Christian, such as native americans being heathens, manifest destiny, slavery, and sexism, etc.
The United States was NOT founded on Christian values.

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " -First Amendment: . https://www.law.cornell.edu... For the founding fathers to declare that the government must not have an establishment of religion clearly shows that our foundations are of secular origin. That no religion may claim hold over the government or its people. Neither, shall laws be passed based on an establishment of religion. Declaration of Independence: "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. " - Declaration of Independence To claim our rights are endowed by our individual Creator's is not a Christian value. It is openly stating that our rights are self-evident and our own personal Creators, of which whom we discover to be, have endowed upon us. Their is no mention of God or Christ in these statements. For the claim, that we are a Nation built on Christian values, to hold we must see evidence of our founders specifically including the Trinity or Christ. This however is not the case. Washington: Much research has been conducted on whether Washington was a Christian or Deist. In his letters to Lafayette he has welcomed all forms of religion and lack of religion. Washington calls God the "Grand Architect", which is a common name for the Deistic God. For example he did not believe in a God who intervened in the quarrels of man. However, he seemed to believe in a Creator who made the universe and stepped back to admire his works without further interference. This is not a Christian value or belief. For more information see: . http://founders.archives.gov... Jefferson: Thomas Jefferson very famously conjured a recollection of the bible whereas he took out the mysticism of the new testament and left only the works of Christ. Denying that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God and the core principles and belief systems of Christianity. The Jefferson Bible is clearly a statement of separation from the Christian values and accepting only the parables and works of a fictitious ancient leader. Thank you, I look forward to your arguments in the next round.
Top three movies of all time.

Sure The Lion King is a good story and sure Timone and Pumba are entertaining, but this movie just does not posses the qualities of an all time great movie (ArticlesBase. com). Qualities of a good movie: Educative- Many of the best movies teach us something new or teach us a lesson(even if it is a lesson we already know). In The Dark Knight and The Shawshank Redemption, it is the lesson of hope, going on even when all the odds are against you. In The Dark Knight Rises (TDKR from here on out) it is the lesson of perseverance and patients. What is the lesson in The Lion King? That a lion, a meerkat and a warthog can get along? That is hardly a lesson and certainly not realistic. The characters- A really good story has characters you can relate to. How can you relate to a warthog, or a meerkat, or even a lion. All three of my movies have characters that you can relate to in some way or another. Sure some people can't relate to Bruce Wayne in the Dark Knight Trilogy but you can relate to some of the other characters, such as Commissioner Gordan. One can also relate very well to Red in The Shawshank Redemption. The actors- One of the most important aspects of a movie are the people who act in it. All three of my movies have arguably the greatest actor of all time: Morgan Freeman. The only really recognizable actor in The Lion King is James Earl Jones, who is even more known for doing the voice of Darth Vader. Also another thing about The Lion King. Have you ever noticed, Timone and Pumba watch while Simba and Nala make love? Weird! Your childhood was just ruined, your welcome. The reputation of The Lion King was also tarnished when Disney went on to make The Lion King 1 1/2 and The Lion King 2, both of which were huge failures. In conclusion, The Lion King was not the greatest movie of all time because it did not contain the elements of a great movie and it had a perverted meerkat and warthog.
R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. Throughout human history, mankind has struggled with the the importance of the individual verses the importance of the species. Early in human history, mankind believed in deities and royalty and caste systems that stressed the value of a few at the expense of many. However as we have evolved, mankind has begun to adopt a belief in individual freedom and inherent rights, that cause us to question the morality of killing any innocent person despite the outcome. I argue that it is still morally permissible to kill an innocent to save the lives of many, simply because the survival of our species is now, and has always been the purpose of mankind on earth, and morality itself is constructed around achieving that goal. Human philosophy is always centered around the survival and happiness of humanity. Even religious philosophy is centered around those eventual goals. Arguments arise in the approach to achieving the goal, not the stated goal of happiness and survival of our species itself. Given the universal human goal of survival of our species I submit, and the fact that morality is a supportive result of that goal, one MUST accept that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
R: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Preface: This is the LD topic for September-October, plus the Yale Invitational. I've debated this topic 4 times before, however created a new neg. case. I want to test it. Therefore, if you want to debate this, have some knowledge of LD debate, like structure. Also, I don't wan tto debate someone I've already debated in this topic. I want someone fresh. So, good luck all. I'll let Aff. speak first.