azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Football vs Basketball
Side: Football

I disagree not anyone can play football if that were the case you would see woman in the NFL there's not many if any woman football leagues
Debate: Football vs Basketball
Side: Basketball

Football needs to much space for a gaming field. Basketball on the other hand needs only half the ring to have a good game
Debate: Football vs Basketball
Side: Basketball

Basketball is better.Playing football only legs are used but for playing basket ball legs and hands are used. So by playing basketball both legs and hands gets enthusiastic
Debate: Football vs Basketball
Side: Basketball

Basketball is better.Playing football only legs are used but for playing basket ball legs and hands are used. So by playing basketball both legs and hands gets enthusiastic.So I prefer basket ball.
Debate: Football vs Basketball
Side: Basketball

basketball is better than football because with football you are JUST kicking a ball and trying to score in a net plus there are always fights between certain teams and the reasons are totally STUPIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Debate: Football vs Basketball
Side: Basketball

Differentiating both the sports on the following basis:Field size- Small in case for basketball hence the ball needs to be passed quickly. Also, the time to communicate with other players is less that's why basketball asks for more coordination between players than football as the ball cannot be held with one player for too long.Shooting - Doesn't happen when one is good in running; tactics and techniques are to be used. It's more of a mind game when man-to-man is played (which is of course the essential). In football, you win if you run good and strike well. A single player can score high and win the match, take Messi for example; but in basketball, all players need to be very good equally since "passing" the ball is an important aspect.Roles- change. You are both in offense and defense, which is decided by a split second of which team has taken the ball. You are the controller and in a split second, you also are the shooter. In a split second , you are now the defender. Football has more of specific roles: midfielders, goal keeper, striker and defenders.Formation- NECESSARY. In fact, essential of all. Coordination goes hand in hand with this. A winning team isn't the one which is good in running or striking, it's the one which has the best man to man formation no matter who is running, defending, controlling, or shooting.Time- very quick. Quicker than football because again small court, 10 players. The game doesn't stop at all, there's no time to breathe whether you have the ball or not, it's continuous and very fast-paced, everyone has to run. Football, well you get enough time to adjust or communicate or run or see if you don't have to run anymore because it's not your area since you are the midfielder.Football - 7140 sq meters and 22 players = 324.55sq meter per playerBasketball - 436.644 sq meters and 10 players =43.66sq meter per playerDifference: 280.99sq meter enough for 6.44 more basketball playersGame- more of a who knows how to pass Football is more of who knows how to strikeConclusion-I think that basketball has technique.It has no pattern but only a rough idea of how the ball needs to be "handled" rather than to just "put it" in the basket.Taking laps, dribbling while running, tapping, assisting, controlling, passing, shooting; all happen along with the other 9 players present in the court. Imagine the hustle of "keeping" the ball with one self while combining all these actions altogether.Not only does one need individual tactics but also a group combination with a perfect learnt formation for the ball to "move on" from one player to another as keeping the ball with oneself for a longer duration is tough.In a split second, the ball is snatched/stolen/passed/thrown/shot confusing the player of taking a perfect note for whether they have to play in the offense or the defense!
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: yes

Well i say yes.it's the womens choice if they want to play. If they want to put themselves in that position, then so be it.If they are good enough then they should play.Also men's bodies are all different from one another as womens bodies are different as well.How come they don't just play along with physical ability, allowing both men and women to play equally along-side one another.
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: yes

I say yes so that feminists and other women who think they're equal to men can see that they're actually not. I would also like to see them play football, tennis, athletics etc. against each other. Then they will REALLY shut the f*ck up.
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: yes

Tennis? You're joking right? It's already been proven that women can take on a man anytime in that game! Others not so much but tennis most definately!
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: yes

Really? I would love a source which shows Nadal and Venus would come close in a match...
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: No

The only such match that ever existed was the one between Billie Jean King and a male partner, Bobby Riggs, who kept squawking that a woman could never beat a man in tennis...guess what? She won it! I'd love to see another match like that myself!
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: yes

Lol great, an old man vs. the then woman's champion. Again what about a truly 'fair' (by that i mean age and 'skill' level) match? Like the one i mentioned. Seriously, the top 20 male tennis players would steam roll the top 5 female players.
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: No

You're wrong, wrong, wrong. You're wrong, wrong, wrong.You're wrong, wrong, wrong.
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: yes

Did you just do that to make sure it was over fifty characters?
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: yes

I don't care. If a girl wants to play rugby with the guys, then let her. If she gets really hurt, then it was her fault because she wanted to play with them.
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: yes

womne should get to play rugby if they love the sport and they want to play it. yeh fine if we get hurts its are own fault but women can just get the same ammount of injurys as men!! so what is the difference of women playing rugby? yeh fine women shouldnt play with men but the should be able to play the sport with out anybody making smart comments. as men can play hockey and people can say that sport is just for women! so women should get to play and sport they choose!!!
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: yes

Hey, just as I said in the Australian debate about using women that are willing and able on the front lines, they can do it if they are willing to take the risk. I mean, they always have the choice to play with other women, and if they want to step it up to play with guys, let them!
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: yes

Yes because It will be fun watching them get thrown to the floor and then crying about a finger nail
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: yes

Well women are just as capable as men to play any sport. In most cases women are stronger than men so they could play. Rugby is a very tough sport so maybe the women would get hurt but they should still be allowed to play.
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: No

I don't know what kind of men and women you are looking at, but in the rest of the world, male athletes almost always out-perform female ones. Women are at a genetic disadvantage because their bodies don't produce the same natural muscle mass or testosterone-driven aggression that gives men an advantage in physical sports. This is the logic behind having separate men and women's divisions in almost all sports. Take the statistics from track for example. the world record for women in the 100m dash is 10.49 seconds. For the men it is 9.58 seconds. If men and women were to compete on the same level, no women would have recognition in athletics because because men have a biological advantage. Women should stick to their own for the sake of fairness.
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: Yes

i think women should be aloud to play rugby with men because they want and think they can... and not all women get along with other women... so those women should play with men
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: Yes

Yes they should play with men. there's always been an argument about which is the better gender and by getting the men and women to play means better equality and better understanding of each other. In primary and secondary same sex still do sports together so way should it be any different. Ok men might have 6 and 8 packs but doesnt make a difference women can stillget them too. bottom line women should play
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: Yes

Yes women should be able to play with men. I play rugby and at school the boys and girls play together, even if they have different builds. It doesn't matter how strong or fast you are, if rugby is something you love or want to try, you should be able to do it with anyone
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: Yes

With the push for equality, I think women should be able to play rugby with men.
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: Yes

yes! jeez we might be built a bit different to you but we can still tackle and we can still take a tackle girls are given the weaker gender PU - LEAZE that is old fashioned and not true! -_-
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: No

physically women are built differently from men with lighter bones, less muscle, more fat, and more mobile joints, wight distributions in females is also different. While the larger female breasts give some weight to the top of the body women give much heavier than men in th lower part of the body because of the female pelvis is larger,, fat deposits are around the abdomen, thighs and hips. The body's center of gravity is therefore usually slightly lower in women than in men. These differences mean that the female body functions in a mechanically different way from that of the male....
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: No

But...I also think that they shouldn't play rugby with men.It is fact that men are physically better than women.Women should probably just stick to their own gender.
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: No

That is just a sexual harassment law suit waiting to happen as the women will complain about getting groped. Although...., some may like it...., but no, absolutely not! Are these good looking women we're talking about? ;)
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: No

because not all women are strong as men and we can get badly damaged also boys are more rough in rugby then girls are.
Debate: Should women play rugby with men?
Side: No

They can play, but not in a men is team and not in a men is league. Men are much stronger and faster and they have a lot of damages from the game. And if women play with them, i think there will be a lot of blood and crying women. I think if they play with with them, in a third minute referee will stop the game, because man hided woman and she had broken her nail.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Fencing

This is like the difference between stabbing someone in the ass VS having someone's ass in your face ;)
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Fencing

I prefer fencing, and this is why.1) Fencing is a much more elegant sport. If you are fixed in armour, and you are lightly exchanging blows with someone else who is equally safe, then surely the safety risk are better than wrestling.2) Fencing feels more heroic.Have you ever imagined yourself to be some sort of hero that you see in movies? The kind that comes in with swords and destroys everyone? Well, fencing is just, in my opinion, a way to experience that. Wrestling? I don't fancy the prospect of being sat on my some hugely overweight guy. 3) Fencing requires more intelligence.Wrestling is mainly about who has the strength and speed to force the other to the ground, whereas fencing involves quick thinking, strategy, and the will to carry on going. What kind of intelligence is there in twisting someone's arm so that they become exceedingly uncomfortable? That's immoral. Fencing, on the other hand, doesn't inflict pain upon you and is therefore a mind game as well as a physically challenging one.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Wrestling

All Martial Arts require Quick Thinking, Strategy and the will to carry on going, this also applies to Wrestling which to win needs as much intelligence as any other Martial Art (having never fenced I cant say that there is more or less intelligence or Strategic Thinking required) and you have to think strategically to win, I have defeated people bigger and stronger than myself in my grappling days and you can defeat people without causing injury.  Why is a Sport which could possibly cause injury to your opponent immoral, if both people have decided to partake they will know the risks involved if one person was being forced to partake then that would be immoral but if they are both willing participants then how is this possibly immoral? You make Fencing sound risk free but there have been injuries sometimes fatal when armour has failed and people have received cuts and Puntured Lungs making Fencing as immoral as any other Martial Art
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Fencing

"To win needs as much intelligence as any other Martial Art"Wrestling isn't a sport that requires as much intelligence as fencing. It does require the courage to go on, as with anything in life, but this isn't really intelligence. Fencing may require you to plan, plot, think, maneouvre, dance a little bit - all sorts of things. Wrestling requires a lot less intelligence than fencing because it is a sport almost completely dominated by physical strength and ability, whereas fencing requires a mixture of physical ability and intelligence. "There have been injuries ... when armour has failed"That is an issue not really related.If, for example, some armour doesn't work as it is supposed to, then that does not mean that the whole sport is a mess. It just means that some country is probably going to be sued by angry people who claim to have had their safety infringed upon. There is nothing wrong with the sport just because there is something wrong with a manufacturer. Something similar could happen in wrestling. In a wrestling ring one of the barriers may break and if some huge dude is leaning on a barrier and it collapses beneath his weight then you have a problem. Does that mean there is something wrong with the sport as a whole? Of course not.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Wrestling

When you talk about Wrestling I thought you were talking about the style of Wrestling seen in the Olympics but the way you talk about the Wrestling Ring and some Massive Dude leaning on it sounds like you are talking about Proffesional Wrestling which is a completely different Beast. The Grappling Martial Arts like you see in the Olympics need you to Plan, Plot, Think and Manouvere, someone that steams in thinking they are going to win because they have the edge on Size and Strength is more likely to lose because the smaller guy will just avoid him by manouvering out of the way as I have proved I think my point about injuries sustained in Fencing is relevant here as you were saying Fencing is a safe sport compared to Wrestling which it is'nt any Sport involving Weapons is going to be dangerousPlease could you confirm what type of Wrestling you are talking about as we may be talking at crossed purposes
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Wrestling

1) Wrestlers strengthen their bodies which both helps prevent injuries and quickens recovery periods when injured. You can't so easily out-train a stab wound. Granted, injuries are probably less common in fencing than in wrestling, but wrestlers become harder to injure due to their more intense training and competitions; a quality that carries outside of the sport too. 2) This argument appeals to personal preference and therefore doesn't require refuting.3) This argument is poorly backed. I could make the same argument in reverse and it would be just as valid. Wrestling requires split-second decision making skills and real-time calculations of both the energy costs of a movement and the odds of the movements success. Fencing, on the other hand requires little more than long arms and aggressive stabbing. Given that you never get "tied up" with your opponent in fencing, the answer to the question "what do I have to do to win?" is always the same; hit them with your sword -- while the answer to that same question in wrestling is much more ad-hoc. Therefore, wrestling requires more intelligence.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Fencing

"You can't so easily out-train a stab wound"If supplied with the correct equipment, you don't have to.It isn't the fault of the sport if someone is injured; it is the fault of the manufacturer. If I am injured in wrestling because someone has pulled my arm off, or something, then I wouldn't be able to blame any manufacturer, because no manufacturer would have supplied a person. Therefore it is the fault of the sport.However, in fencing it is the manufacturer's fault if something dodgy occurs with the equipment. "Wrestling requires split-second decision making" So does fencing. If I come at you with undeniable speed and attempt a stab at your chest, you have to parry it. But then I may pull out at the last second to stab somewhere else - so you have to have quick decision making to defend from both and attack me in return. If anything, fencing requires a lot faster decision making than wrestling does. Just have a quick look at the video below to see that wrestling requires less speed than fencing does. "Fencing requires little more than long arms and aggressive stabbing"Whereas wrestling requires strong arms and sitting?I would rather someone stabbed me in the chest where it is pain-free, than someone sat on me where it may be pain-free, but is still just annoying. Fencing does not require just long arms and stabbing, though. It requires quick decision making, intelligence, fitness, coordination, good sportsmanship, etc. "The answer to the question "what do I have to do to win?" is always the same; hit them with your sword"Well, if you are extremely below average, it will be. Although usually you will come into contact with someone who thinks a little more than that. To be successful at fencing you will have to think more than just stab them, as in wrestling you would require to just pin them. Well, that's the pure basics anyway. In fencing I would be required to block, move, dance a little bit, make a couple of attacks, and think of innovative ways to surprise my opponent and stay focussed. Therefore, fencing requires more intelligence.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Wrestling

Fencing, on the other hand, doesn't inflict pain upon youYou have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Fencing

Don't I? I have done fencing before and it was a completely painless experience.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Wrestling

I have done fencing before and it was a completely painless experience.well,a professional fencer got killed during a fencing match, the sword went through his mask through one of the tiny holes in the net and he got impaled in the eye. actually, streetfighting and some use of weapons is safer than having someone swinging his sword at you( and no pun intended ;) ). and many other incidents have happened as well.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Fencing

Incidents may have occurred in fencing - but they've also occurred in wrestling. If someone is injured because of the tools used in fencing then it can be put down to the fault of the manufacturer. However, if someone was injured in wrestling, could that be put down to the fault of the manufacturer? No. Fencing is a less dangerous sport when the equipment being used has no faults, if it does have faults then it is not the fault of the sport; it is the fault of the provider of equipment.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Fencing

What sword? If it's foil, then of course not. But Saber and Épée hurt like a muthaf%^!.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Fencing

Like I said earlier please advise which type of Wrestling you are reffering to you talk about a Big Dude leaning on the Ring and breaking it and then show a Video of a Sumo Wrestler Sumo Wrestling like most Wrestling is done in a Ring that is drawn on the ground unlike the Wrestling seen on TV like WWE and Mexican Wrestling which is done in a built up ring with ropes etc
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Wrestling

1) Fencing is a much more elegant sport.Contests that don't make use of deadly weapons seem more elegant to meIf you are fixed in armour, and you are lightly exchanging blows with someone else who is equally safe, then surely the safety risk are better than wrestling.A wrestler can use his skills in a real situation without causing harm to his opponent.2) Fencing feels more heroic.Have you ever imagined yourself to be some sort of hero that you see in movies? The kind that comes in with swords and destroys everyone? Well, fencing is just, in my opinion, a way to experience that. Wrestling? I don't fancy the prospect of being sat on my some hugely overweight guy.Destroying people is not heroic3) Fencing requires more intelligence.Wrestling is mainly about who has the strength and speed to force the other to the ground, whereas fencing involves quick thinking, strategy, and the will to carry on going.What kind of intelligence is there in twisting someone's arm so that they become exceedingly uncomfortable? That's immoral. Fencing, on the other hand, doesn't inflict pain upon you and is therefore a mind game as well as a physically challenging one.Wrestling is at least as mentally involved as fencing. I defeat stronger and quicker opponents all the time. Wrestling gets you in better shape than fencing and requires more intense effort.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Fencing

It helps develop better reactions to certain instances. It is a quite elegant sport. The "deadly weapon" is only deadly if the user wants the opponent dead. Fencing is almost like high speed chess. Wrestling is nearly the same as it is in just about any sport but fencing does require faster reflexes than those in most sports. Now wrestling does whip you into better shape and yes it is a very nice sport. But fencing has a style of place that requires speed and keen eyesight. You must find that small gap in the opponents wall of defense which lasts for only a second. If a wrestler and a fencer ever squared off the sword wouldn't be the fencer's best asset. Not at all. His/her mind would be.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Wrestling

As far as actual usefulness is concerned, wrestling is the superior sport. People don't carry around swords any more. If you find yourself in a situation where you need to defend yourself, odds are you won't have a sword. It's pretty obvious which discipline is more useful in this case.
Debate: Fencing VS Wrestling
Side: Wrestling

wrestling also teaches you self defense and how to protect yourself with your fists and feet. i know your gonna say fencing does too, but do you expect a 30 year old to pull out a sword when something is about to happen? no