BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should footballers be paid such huge amount every week.

It's actually very hard to debate with you, for I do not get your main point. From what I understand, you're saying football isn't important enough to get the excessive attention and money it's getting, because it is just a sport and nothing else, correct? Football players, even after retirement, have back pains and such because of the amount of workout and damage they acquired during football games. To care for that, they need money to keep going to the hospital and such. It isn't rocket science. Typically, jobs that have more risks have a higher salary. So, they definitely SHOULD get paid a lot.
should footballers be paid such huge amount every week.

I will assume my opponent is talking about NFL football players. An NFL Football player's career is not guaranteed. The average you can play football is about 3.3 years. Their careers can end as soon as they are not able to perform at their highest level. Because are of the competitiveness of the field, football players will give their best at playing every game. Therefore, there would be much more injuries. That requires insurance and if they are not paid, how will they get insurance? Also, a college education affects the pay of an NFL football player. It is said that a football player that has a college degree earns 20% to 30% more than a football player that left school early to play in the NFL. Generally, people that has a college degree earns more than a person that does not, so it is only fair for this to be applied in NFL football. And since my opponent's original question was, "should football players should be payed such huge amount every week," I will answer that with a yes. As I have stated before, a football player's career is extremely limited as opposed to other professions. So it would make logical sense to pay them weekly. Source: http://www.livestrong.com...
should footballers be paid such huge amount every week.

Thank you for not forfeiting this round. You stated that David Beckham gets paid 15.8 million pounds. That's great, but he isn't a football player. He's a soccer player. This debate is about NFL football players. "..Simply because there are professional singers,actors and actresses that work at the top level of commanding wages." -Are NFL football players not professional? Do they not work at their top level? Do you have any idea how hard they work, every day for hours physically? Most actors and actresses get plastic surgery to be as successful as they are. What image are they projecting to young children? Hence the rise in anorexic and bulimic teenagers. Take a look at the workouts, these are for the recruiting process to see you have what it takes to be on the NFL football team: http://www.nfl.com... "a single actor is an artist and like any artist,they paint their own unique pictures.Nobody can be another Robert Mitchum or Jack benny,each actor or actress is unique and different." -I'm guessing you have no idea who Walter Payton, Dick Butkus, Mike Ditka, or Barry Sanders are. They are one of the may football legends. And definitely, not generic. "if a single movie like AVATAR can cost 200m and generate 2billion in revenue,10million dollars is a cheap price to pay an actor who made it all happen." -....and what good does movies do for the world? You were stating before that people should "judge their sense of humanity" and use money on schooling and hospitals instead of football players. People can live without football? People can live without movies, then. You're contradicting yourself. "in this life there are three things: life,tax nd death.football is not one of them......." -I don't see movies or actors/actresses stated in there. Contradiction again? "Who cares who hit a ball into the 18th hole on a pitch for 40years,sport figures add nothing to intelligent or cultural level,movies done by Richard button and many others are constantly enriching and lives on forever." -Personally, I've never heard of Richard Button. Therefore, it's not enriching my life. How can you say sports does not affect anyone culturally? Heard of the gladiators before in ancient times? They killed each other and the audience found that entertaining. That can tell you ALOT about their cultures and morals at the time. Sports figure can be role models for young athletes, aspiring to be just like them one day. What's wrong with that? Being "smart" isn't for everyone. No one wants to just study, study, and study all time. Sports can be entertaining too, but it teaches you life lessons such as playing as a team and winning all the time isn't necessary. It's healthy emotionally and mentally. By the way, the NFL actively donates to Breast Cancer Research. www.NFL.com/pink For future references, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Anyone can edit it.
should footballers be paid such huge amount every week.

firstly,i am sorry that i forfeited that round. Since i stated that football is for entertainment and should not be highly paid,that will not go for 'entertainers".Simply because there are professional singers,actors and actresses that work at the top level of commanding wages.a single actor is an artist and like any artist,they paint their own unique pictures.Nobody can be another Robert Mitchum or Jack benny,each actor or actress is unique and different.if a single movie like AVATAR can cost 200m and generate 2billion in revenue,10million dollars is a cheap price to pay an actor who made it all happen.In this context then,i think they are worth every penny. What amazes me are sports figures who are not artists.....they just know how to kick,toss,hit or run with a ball.i know football is not easy but think about what they are contributing to a society? They are not contributing art than actress or actor did.Who cares who hit a ball into the 18th hole on a pitch for 40years,sport figures add nothing to intelligent or cultural level,movies done by Richard button and many others are constantly enriching and lives on forever.I have told myself the next life i live(i believe in reincarnation) i am going to kick a ball around a course and make 10million dollars a year. According to the table of casualties on the home ministry website 10,749 casualties have been abandoned most of them in the state of TAMIL NADU.5,640 missing all because of the 2004 Indian ocean earthquake.countries affected; Malasia,myanmar,somalia,sri lanka and thailand,these are where money should be placed.22 countries are facing enormous challenges like repeated food crisis and extremely high prevalence of hunger due to natural disasters.F.A.O revealed that 925million in this world live in chronic hunger.THE PATH to recovery is called for significant RETHINKING. My point(since my opponent does not always get it) is that footballers should be paid but not such huge amount like 15.8million pounds(david beckham is recieving + his other revenue streams).http://en.wikipedia.org... _the__2004_indian_ocean_earthquake.
Adults should not compare their childrens lives to their own childhood

To conclude everything. The youth today clearly needs guidance, needs to learn respect and learn how to appreciate things in life that our parents don't have during their time. By simply doing a comparison in both childhoods, it may show a big difference. And this comparison can help balance the attitude of the youth which is affected by the changes brought by time. Comparison is not a dictation, instead it serves as a compass, something that gives direction once handled properly, Every parent does not want his/her child to lose its way in life. We can't blame the parents that they suffered much during their time and we can't blame ourselves that technology has made everything a lot easier. But even though technology still affect our way in life and again our behavior. So as a teenager, a youth of this generation, I strongly believe that parents have the right to compare their own childhood to the lives of their children. Thank you. PLEASE VOTE FOR CONS!!
Adults should not compare their childrens lives to their own childhood

Okay so firstly, as much as I have to say that advice is important, I have to point out that firstly pre-adolescent children do not fully comprehend what their parents are trying to tell them as what you have seen with what I have just said in my first arguement and secondly it has been proven that children do not learn lessons or follow their parents advise without their parents being able to back their sayings with actions and when you think that through it is true, when our parents tell us not to touch the cookies on the oven tray because it is hot do you think the pre adolescent 5 year old will listen to his mom? No his curiosity will get him to touch it and he will burn his hand, alternatively his mother could show him that it is hot and that is why he shouldn't touch it because he will burn, so in conclusion of this arguement children do not listen to what their parents say majority of the time so why should they heed any advise from their parents when they're relating a story from their childhood? Secondly your arguement on how childrens stories are just there to guide us and prevent us from doing bad things, well firstly as I pointed out they don't help if they children don't listen to t and sometimes the best lessons are ones learnt by themselves for example going out partying the day before school and having to go to school the next day the children would have to suffer the hangover and realize their mistake and not doing it again but if the parents just told them that would be the consequence they might not fully comprehend the consequences of their actions. And secondly many a time the children might misinterpret their pants intention when they tell their children of their story and this could provide pressure on these children after all the amount of pressure on us to day is extremely high and we don't need our parents there to tell us stories of their childhood to ours in comparison.
Adults should not compare their childrens lives to their own childhood

Adults have the right to compare their childhood to ours, even though they lived in different circumstances. You mentioned about technology. In today's world technology is all out, we cannot deny that people are abusing it, including us, the youth. Adults have less technology in their time which means there is less abuse. My point is that, the reason why they may compare both childhoods is that they want their children to avoid too much usage of what the world created. Saying that they don't have Internet before that's why they go outside to do something productive doesn't literally mean that a teenager should do that as well, they are only trying to say that enough facing the monitor and surfing the net. "well we can spend our time outdoors as well but I don't think that we need our parents to tell us whether or not we should spend more time outdoors or what to do" -, I know, parent's interference is difficult but that's not the purpose of childhood comparison. When our parents narrate their activities before that doesn't mean that they are dictating what we should do but they are trying to tell us what we should not do. They've been there before so they know what they are saying. After all, it's for our own sake anyways. Comparing both childhoods is not a dictation but guidance for us the youth. "surely we can decide with our lives as to what we should do?"-, Not all the time, after all, we're still young (children, right?). Not all of our decisions are matured enough. That's why we get our parents to compare their childhood to ours, to learn better choices and decisions that they've done before. "after all we are becoming more educated people than our parents were at our age "-, More educated people, agreed, but are we more mannered than our parents were? Not all educated person are well-mannered. In our parent's time, there are less influences that could alter their behavior. We are more educated but not matured enough to make the decisions our parents can make. Even though I am still a teenager, I believe that my parents have the right to give me guidance not dictation through comparing their childhood to ours. They are more matured, they've experienced what we are experiencing and they certainly know what they're doing. Childhood comparison is not taking away of freedom my friend. If you were a parent, would you allow your children to choose their own decisions? In a world when technology is more chaotic than it is right now, would allow them to be slaves of their own choices? Why not give them guidance? How? Simple, by telling them that you, as a parent know what you are doing, protecting them, for their own sake and guiding them through narrating your childhood before.
Adults should not compare their childrens lives to their own childhood

So Firstly I am sorry about my lacking instructions/restrictions but what I meant by that is that round 2 and 3 you can still give rebuttal it is just that in the last round you cannot bring any positive matter into the debate, mainly because it is not fair, so sorry about that. Now on to my actual arguments, in today's debate I will be looking at: Adult's childhood in comparison to ours And secondly Adults influence on our youth and the pressure that is applied to them as well as the importance of children needing to develop their own self persons. So let me start with Adult's childhood in comparison to ours. Our parents cannot compare their childhood to ours because firstly they lived in different circumstances, they did not have the technology that we have today, the ability to have the power of information at our fingertips, the peer pressure that is applied to us by our friends and family to succeed and do well, they lived in different circumstances and I'm fairly certain you must of heard of how they used to spend their time outdoors? well we can spend our time outdoors as well but I don't think that we need our parents to tell us whether or not we should spend more time outdoors or what to do, surely we can decide with our lives as to what we should do? after all we are becoming more educated people than our parents were at our age after all we are debating right now about issues like this, I am fairly certain that they were not provided the opportunities to exchange knowledge like we can right now, and because of these differing times, knowledge availability and technology at hand I beg to propose
Adults should not compare their childrens lives to their own childhood

I accept. Questions, are you sure that we can't do rebuttals in the 2nd or the 3rd round?? That's kind of difficult, how can we defend our sides if we can't even just deny or rebut a false point that we can possibly create? You get my point right? Okay, you're the one who created this debate so I know you have the right. I was just trying to see if this debate can be better if it's not for those rules, I'm not trashing those rules but it's just that.... I know you know what I mean. Okay, let me start ;) As the cons of this debate I stand firm to my claim that adults should have the right to compare their children's lives to their own childhood. Children or even teenagers of this generation clearly need guidance. There are so many factors that affect the children's lifestyle today. I'll be mentioning one, technology. In our further arguments I'll explain why this factor can cause changes for us, the youth. These changes may be in our mental, psychological, social, physical or even spiritual aspect. Furthermore I'll expand my argument in the upcoming rounds, that's why I won't be mentioning too much in my burden of proof. I, myself am a teenager, my parent's do compare their life before to our lives right now, I once hated it when they do that, but I realized that they have a point, that they have the right. GOOD LUCK my friend and may the odds be ever in our favor. Let the debate commence! :D
Tom Holland will make a horrible Spider-Man.

I will argue that he'll at least make a decent if not good Spider-Man. Since Pro has not defined his terms, I will. Horrible: 1. Causing or tending to cause horror; shockingly dreadful. 2. Extremely unpleasant; deplorable; disgusting. Tom Holland: A young actor recently cast as Spider-Man. Spider-Man: A Marvel Comics Superhero. Therefore, in order for Pro to live up his resolution, he must prove that Tim Holland's portrayal will cause horror, as well as being unpleasant, deplorable, and/or disgusting. ________________________________________________________Pro then goes on to say that he has nothing against Holland's acting skills, and that he has even delivered brilliant performances. He calls Holland young, fresh, and flexible, admitting his flexibility gives him an advantage in the role. Since Pro openly recognizes all of these things, how does he still think Holland will do a *horrible* job? ________________I know very well the story of the Marvel Civil War. I have read, and own most of the arch. I know how violent and destructive it is, but it could have been worse. Pro argues that The Civil War is no place for a fifteen year old boy. This is false, because many fifteen year olds have matured enough to handle violence, especially since this one is handling being a superhero. Spider-Man is not fifteen during the events of The Civil War, so this claim by Pro is completely inaccurate. During the events, he is presumed to be in his early to mid twenties. This is backed up from one of the comics where Spider-Man reveals his identity and says "My name is Peter Parker, and I have been Spider-Man since I was fifteen years old. " Speaking that it has been a minimum of eight years from Parker's start as Spider-Man to the start of The Civil War, Parker is estimated to be at least 23 years old when the war breaks out. Even if Pro were arguing that Tom Holland is too young to play someone in The Civil War, he's wrong. Holland is nineteen. ____________________ Pro says that Captain America was 90 years old in The Civil War. Yes, that would be true, if he had never been frozen. Cap's time frozen halted his aging, so even when he rised seventy-odd years later, he still had the appearance and capabilities of a man in his early thirties. And as far I as know, there is no evidence that Cap was suffering from PTSD. He also says that Iron Man was 50 years old. This is as assumption, a false one at most. Stark was probably in his late thirties to early fourties during the war. ___________________________________SOURCES:Spidey's age: . http://marvel.wikia.com...Definition of "horrible": . http://dictionary.reference.com...Tom Holland: . http://www.imdb.com...I'd
Tom Holland will make a horrible Spider-Man.

Well, finally, after a long last 6 months Marvel has finally casted its Spider-man. During this exhausting and cliff-hanging decision making, we got a glimpse on such amazing names, as Dylan O'Brien, Logan Lerman, Josh Hutcherson. However, what we got is some guy called Tom Holland. Now, please, let me be clear, why I think this actor will absolutely and miserable fail to deliver appropriate Spider-Man; a Spider-Man that we don't deserve, but that we need.I have nothing against the acting skills of mr Holland. The guy delivered brilliant performances in the Impossible and How I live Now pictures, even tho had not played a significant part in them. He is young, he is fresh, he is flexible, I even heard he did gymnastics, which gives him at least some king of an advantage over his predecessors of the web crawler. HOWEVER.Civil War is probably one of the darkest, most violent and rampaging series Marvel has ever produced. I will not throw away spoilers, but a number of signigicant deaths, suffering and tough choices, that affect characters so much, is simply not a place for a 15 years old boy! For this round, I will use the following argument: Tom Holland's portrayal of a 15 years old spidey, in a line with a 90 years old cap, who struggles with PTSD, 50 years old Iron Man, who needs to re-evaluate his morality and life priorities, is, and I am sorry I think so, absolutely ridiculous! I will with pleasure take anyone against my pro, but I just felt like I need to argue with someone about it, so I will go nuts, don't you even doubt it.
Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election

Hilary's odds may have been going up since 2008, but her and her husband's uncertain health put the future in an uncertain light. I agree that Hilary would be a very difficult opponent to beat, with her extensive connections to the Nation's democratic elite. However, at this point there is no clear evidence on who is likely to be the Republican candidate, much less the dirt and mud that will be slung around during election season. Thus anything we say here is purely speculative. I speculate that it's anyone's game at the moment.
Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election

Thank you for your previous argument, Hilary's odd have skyrocketed since 2008 http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com... have Clinton would be a strong candidate paragraph 2.Mrs. Clinton"s credentials as secretary of state, as a United States senator and as a politically engaged first lady would be hard for any of her Democratic or Republican rivals to match. She would have little trouble raising funds or garnering support from the Democratic officials, and she might even come close to clearing the Democratic field of serious opposition. From this argument alone you must think blowout while Rubio may put up a fight in Hispanic states I think he will still lose California and Arizona (win Texas and Nevada) it is apparent California is not in doubt. While major candidate Jeb Bush will try and take out Rubio if he does, he would have no hope as contesting Clinton. In addition Hillary will have major favor with the elderly as she understands what there going through and she's democratic meaning Florida is not in doubt
Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election

Your point comparing a possible Rubio vs. Clinton campaign to the Obama-McCain campaign is rather faulty. In the 2008 campaign, Obama was the young , energetic minority man against an old, tired white man. However In a Rubio-Clinton election however,Clinton would not be able to use the same point of attack against Rubio, Christie, or Paul. I would agree with you that the media typically supports democratic candidates, however, they always have and republicans have won in the past. I would further disagree that Rubio is the top contender, with his recent filibuster, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has risen to the national scale. Furthermore, Chris Christie has been shown as a blunt and honest politician who is not afraid to compromise, or stand like a stick in the mud. His approval rating that has been hovering at about 70 percent in a reliably blue state stands testament to his elect ability on a national scale. Good points, and an enjoyable debate thusfar.
Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election

Thank you for your point, I believe they will go toe-to-toe with Hillary as well, but I believe even Marco Rubio can't win, I believe as it stands right now Hillary would win a election with Rubio in similar fashion to Obama-McCain I believe the Media has vast support for her in the same way they influenced the 2012 election Romney came close but lost (partly) due to overwhelming media bias, and not only did he lose, he also lost every battle-ground state even Florida. It is hard to win when your ahead in approval ratings and pull away, It's impossible when your behind and can't catch up and Rubio's ratings will fall more as republican candidates take shots at him alone (as he is top contender but not with overwhelming support) to try and make the final booth.
Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 election

I belive that there are several repubican canidates who could go toe to toe with Hillary, aswell as her possibly being challenged by Joe Biden. Her current high approval rate is due to the fact that she has been out of the political arena for some time now, but once she announces she is running, and the political Machine starts turning those rates will fall. For these reasons, i belive that Hillary will be in jepordy of losing the 2016 Election.