BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 2014 Minnesota Vikings in the playoffs?!

Well, if RG3 isn't good enough for you I can also name some other standout rookie QB's - Cam Newton - Matt Ryan - Peyton Manning - Andrew Luck -Russel Wilson So I guess these guys were "scared and made too many mistakes." There is no reason to believe that Teddy can't be as successful as any of these guys. Teddy Bridgewater started the draft process as the #1 QB and a potential #1 pick. His draft stock fell because of a lackluster pro day. Now let me get this straight, the #1 QB in the entire draft who has thrown for over 9,800 yards and has thrown 72 touchdowns in his college career now falls in the draft process because of a workout in shorts? Teddy Bridgewater has been nothing short of amazing on THE FIELD he has been praised for his toughness, accuracy, and mentality (something you said a ALL rookie QB's have a problem with.... "The thing about rookie QB's is they're scared and they make too many mistakes.")Teddy simply hasn't been like that on the football field, in fact, far from it. Also where did you do your research for "Defensive style coaches are known for being QB killers." Sure, some may have that reputation, but defensive style coaches in general work just fine with QB's here are a few examples. - Jim Schwartz/Matthew Stafford -Ron Rivera/Cam Newton -Mike Tomlinson/Ben Roethlisburger And yes, those Packers were injured too, but tell me this if you were the Packers would you rather have a healthy Aaron Rodgers or all of the players you mentioned. I think the Packers would want their star QB, in a QB driven league, starting and healthy. So I think all of your points have been answered effectively. Now what about all of my other points? Can I get a few responses? You still haven't brought up Norv Turner, or the rest of the first round picks, or Adrian Peterson. As far as I'm concerned the Vikings have a good chance of making it to the playoffs. Nothing you have said has made me think twice (or anyone else for that matter.)
The 2014 Minnesota Vikings in the playoffs?!

"Not all rookie QBs are prone to make mistakes. RG3 in 2012 for example." RG3 is an exception, not the standard. RG3 was projected to go number two overall and he did. Bridgewater almost wasn't a first round pick, and he was expected to be. His prospect really fell in the draft, and for good reason. He didn't really stand out at the combine or his pro day. Also regarding Bridgewater, I think he will have trouble with his head coach Mike Zimmer. Zimmer is a defensive guy and defensive style coaches are known for being QB killers, which isn't good for a rookie. Also, regarding Aaron Rodgers, he was not the only guy injured on last year's team. Some other guys with injuries were Clay Matthews, Jordy Nelson, and Jermichael Finley to name a few.
Over involved Parents with social media

You do make very good points throughout our debate, but overall I still strongly believe that parents should not be allowed an excessive amount of access to their child's social media account. The parents should believe that they have raised their child with enough knowledge of potential dangers of the internet that they can avoid them. And if cyber bullying does occur the child should feel like they can seek help from their parents. Most importantly though I believe that when the parent gives the child permission to get a social media account they are giving them their trust to make the right choices with it. If the parents are constantly checking and watching over the child's social media, then there is no trust shown. For these reasons I strongly believe that parents do not have the right to check on their child's social media accounts.
Over involved Parents with social media

In conclusion, I believe that parents should be involved in their child's social media for protection and for the enhancement of social media for both the parent and the child. For protective purposes, a parent should be involved in their child's social media because it can prevent a child from being cyber bullied. Cyber bullying is a huge issue and can lead to depression and often suicide. If parents get involved in a child's social media this horrific event can be prevented. Also if the parent of the bully monitors their child's social media, then the bullying can be stopped at that point and little to no damage will be done. Also to protect their child, a parent can prevent a person who is an imposter on the internet trying to reach their child. Kids often do not notice these false accounts and can umfortunaey fall for the other persons tricks. If the parent is involved, this can once again be prevented. Lastly a parent being involved in their child's social media can be used for more than just preventing the bad. It can create a further bond between the parent an the child, because children often use social media more than face to face communication. When the parents are involved, they can communicate more often with their child and build a better relationship as well as enjoying the many features of social media sites.
Over involved Parents with social media

I do understand your point about how parents getting involved in social media is a good thing, but I only think to a certain extent. If the parent makes a social media page for themselves and is constantly posting or commenting on the child's page they will begin to feel like they are tracking their every move. The parent is not only using it as a form of communication, but to also check up and stalk their child's page. I do not believe that social media should be the main source of communication between the parent and child because that is not a healthy relationship. If the child or parents wanted to share a photo with each other, they could just show it to them in person. That way the child does not feel like the parent is over involved in their social media.
Over involved Parents with social media

While parents being involved in a child's social media can seem intrusive, it can be used to bring a family closer. Often in this day and age kids interact more over social media than they do in person. If parents want to interact with their kids more often then a good way to do it would be over social media. And if that parent is involved in their child's social media life, this can be easier. It could take the secretive element out of social media between parents and kids and make it a place for them to further grow their relationship. For example parents and kids can share photos with each other, recommend them new pages to follow and discuss current issues. If parents become involved in their child's social media it can redefine the use of social media from kids hiding things from their parents to inviting them to look at new posts and invite them into their world of social media. This can help parents to bond with their children and keep up with their lives in this faced paced society that revolves around social media. Also the reverse effect is possible, and kids can keep in touch with their parents easier through the use of social media. They can get photos from their parents, ask about their opinions on current events and ask them any question they please.
Over involved Parents with social media

Again I think this brings us back to the issue of trust. Children use social media sites as a way of releasing pent up emotions they may be feeling. They might not want to share with their parents how they feel because it may be negative about the parents themselves. Friends seem like the most important people to a child at this point in their lives, and being able to talk to them through social media without having to worry about their parents seeing allows them to freely express themselves to one another. If the child was having an issue, hopefully the child would feel comfortable enough to approach the parents. And if the situation was very serious and the child was not talking to their parents, a good enough friend would step forward and do something. Parents need to trust that their child has picked good friends to surround themselves with.
Over involved Parents with social media

Patents should trust their children and hold a strong bond with them, but children often do not want to tell their feelings on things or problems that they are having. Children are more apt to tell their friends about their problems or the struggles that they face. Now with the large use of social media some children take the option of posting about their feelings or whatever is happening in their lives. This is something a parent may not know because the child does not want to tell their parents, but the parent could help the child through this difficulty. If the parent in this situation monitors their son or daughter's social media then the parent can help out the child and that problem would be gone. It eliminates the telling and being nervous aspect of children not wanting to tell their parents certain thing, because they are nervous to ask. As you mentioned children start using social media in middle school, which can be defining years of a child's life before becoming a teenager and then an adult. If a child is having a problem with growing up or increased responsibilities and want to talk about it, but does not wish to directly notify their parents, then the parent being involved in their child's social media can talk to the child about their struggles or things that they are unsure about.
Over involved Parents with social media

Although this may be true the underlying problem with parents stalking their children on social media sights is the issues that will arise at home because of it. Good parents understand the dangers that lurk in their child's lives because they have lived them themselves. Parents often will use there children's social media sites to check up on them, to make sure they're not doing anything they shouldn't be doing. This in turn breaks the bond they have with their child causing them to feel as though there parents are untrustworthy. This causes much more serious problems in the future. For example, most children join social media sites upon entering middle school, which is the same time they are being introduced to substances they are not yet old enough to ingest such as tobacco. Granted the school system and probably the parents have done a good job repetitively telling the dangers of using tobacco whats to stop a rebellious adolescent teen who feels as though they cannot trust their to say no to drugs? The bond forged between a parent and a child is made through trust, that is why parents don't hold the right to evade on their children's privacy and follow them on social media. It has nothing to do with whether or not they will make the right decisions, its about having a strong enough bond that they feel as though they can talk to parents about anything preventing them from making the wrong decision.
Over involved Parents with social media

Although parents should trust their children, in this world of social media, children do not often know what they are doing. There are often sexual predators that will create fraudulent accounts on social media sites in order to get the attention of these kids. Kids often do not notice this and can fall for the tricks that the fake people play. In order to prevent things like this parents should monitor their child's social media. Along with being cyber bullied and taken advantage of over the internet, parents can prevent kids from becoming a cyber bully or an impostor on the internet. If parents knew that their child was a cyber bully or was disrespecting other kids over the internet, there is a much greater chance that the interaction will be terminated before it gets any worse. Along with preventing kids from doing bad things or having bad things done to them, parents can aid their child on how to use social media. If a child does not know how to use Instagram for example, a parent could show the child how to post photos and videos, as well as adding filters and effects to the photo or video to enhance the child's use of the social network.
Over involved Parents with social media

I understand your thoughts on this topic, but I must disagree and say that I do not think that parents have the right to view their child's social media. Parents should have faith that they have raised their child to make the right choices when it comes to social media. When parents give the kid permission to join a social media site, they are giving them their trust to make the right decisions. If the parent is checking everytime their child posts something, then they will begin to feel like there is no trust. The child should be able to feel like they can express themself, without the fear of their parents disapproval. Hopefully, the child and parent has a strong enough relationship that if the child began to feel cyber bullied they could come to the parent.
Over involved Parents with social media

I believe Parents should be allowed to view their child's social media. Parents should be allowed to view this too see if their child is making the right choices in life. Parents are not out to get their kids in trouble, they are simply trying to raise their child as best as they can and I believe monitoring their use of social media helps them better raise their child. Children should not be protesting this, because if they have nothing to hide on social media, then why would they care if their parents see their tweets and posts? Also parents viewing their child's social media interactions can help a child who is being cyber bullied. If a parent sees cyber bullying, they can stop it and prevent future harm to the child. The prevented danger could consist of depression or suicide, which we have unfortunately seen come from cyber bullying very often in today's society.
You pick the topic. :D :D

Alright, if we're "changing" rather than "harming" our environment, are we changing for the better, or doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people? According to Associated Content, "it means devastation to one's home from nearby blasts. It means flooding of childhood homes possibly caused by valley fills. Environmentalists and Friends of Coal speak heatedly and it seems as if there will never be a compromise on the issue." It is also known that coal mining has led to many serious health problems. Coal mining and production has led to elevated hospitalization for chronic pulmonary disorders and hypertension. Rates of mortality, lung cancer, chronic heart disease, lung disease, and kidney diseases are also increased to to coal mining procedures, whether it be mountaintop removal, or otherwise. Coal mining also releases hazardous amounts of methane and produce coal dust that gets inhaled by workers causing serious, life threatening health problems such as black lung, according to "Death By Coals." According to A recent study performed by the WVU Institute for Health Policy Research and Washington State University, "people merely living in coal mining communities with no direct contact with the mines themselves, were at higher risk for kidney disease and chronic lung and heart diseases. In fact they were found to be 70 times as likely to develop kidney disease and 64 times as likely to develop chronic lung diseases such as emphysema. Death rates in coal mining communities are higher than in other parts of the country, even among non-mine workers" And this is somehow beneficial? I think not. My opponent makes the argument that through coal mining, many jobs are opened. Every coal mining job creates another 5 to 8 jobs somewhere in the economy However, to replace coal mining with other means of producing energy wouldn't lower job opportunities, because according to the Associated Press, it would be replaced with one of the alternative industries. So, in the end, using other means of providing energy would be MUCH more beneficial.
You pick the topic. :D :D

I was focusing on the USA, but things that benefit the world community ultimately can benefit the US, and so those can be considered. My opponent questions "Would our economy severely decrease if we discontinue use?" Simple answer is yes. Coal power 48% of our electricity [1], and provides about 174,000 jobs in the US [2]. Simply simply discontinuing the use of coal would put tens of thousands out of a job, and cut our electric grid almost in half. The blackouts would cripple most other businesses, since just about every business needs the lights on to work. Bringing in other energy sources (such as nuclear, solar, wind, and others) could minimize our personal use of coal, however the mining of coal for sale to other nations should still be allowed, since it will save 114,000 jobs (mining and transporting) and provide a massive amount of income for the US via exports, in upwards of $87 billion dollars [3][2]. Which is over $760,000 per worker (so the economics for it providing good paying jobs are there at market value). My opponent has brought up that coal harms our environment. I disagree with the word "harm." It doesn't "harm" the environment, it changes it. Some animals and plants are negatively impacted, some are positively impacted. The burning of coal releases CO2, which all plants need to survive, it is like their oxygen. So the burning of coal is basically giving plants "oxygen." The Ringtail cat, or Miners cat, is another animal that has benefited greatly from mines and miners. [4] Using the mines as safe spots from its predators and places to catch its prey with easy. [1] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [2] http://www.sourcewatch.org... [3] http://www.globalcoal.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
You pick the topic. :D :D

Basically, I'll rebut my opponents last case. My opponent begins by telling us that the continued usage of coal and oil will help boost our economy. That is what I get from this contention, and If I'm wrong, I pray that my opponent will correct me. My opponent tells us how the usage is benefiting the United States monetarily. My opponent fails to show an impact. Would our economy severely decrease if we discontinue use? If my opponent cannot prove that it would lower our economic stance significantly to discontinue use of coal and oil, then we must see that there is no impact in my his argument. Are we debating on a global aspect or US interest exclusively? My opponent goes on to say that alternative sources of energy would reduce our personal need for coal and oil. So why don't we? Considering it'd be in our better interest not to use coal, as it harms our environment with pollution and such, which obviously lead to health issues. I urge a negative vote. Thank you.
You pick the topic. :D :D

The topic is going to be "usage of Oil and Coal" where as PRO (me) is going to support the continued usage of oil and coal at currenty or higher then current levels, while CON (my opponent) is going to support lowering the usage of oil and coal. As this is a five round debate, I will keep my arguments short in the first round. Reasons that we should continue using and even expand our mining and usage of coal and oil in the USA are actually pretty overwhelming. First thing first, we should expand our current drilling of oil here in the US, rather then import oil. This will have several major benefits. A) Drilling in the US will us American workers and so provide jobs. B) This will also help keep money in the US, since we import over 9 million barrells of crude oil a day [1], and with oil flucuating around $80 a barrell [2], that is $720 million a day leaving this country (over $260 billion a year). If we could keep some of that in the US, that money would continue to circulate and stimluate throughout the economy. C) This would increase the total amount of oil and so raise Supply without effecting Demand. That means that the cost of oil would go down, meaning the cost at the pump would go down, which would help everyone in the US, individuals and businesses (costs less to ship materials around, costs less to commute to and from work, and so on). [3] Second, we should continue and expand our mining and usage of coal. While I support using alternative energies, Coal currently powers 48% of this nation's electricity. And while the alternative energies may reduce our personal needs for coal, there is still a need throughout the world in developing nations that are too poor to be able to afford solar panels or wind turbines or nuclear power plants. Coal will greatly help those nations get out of the dark and to provide electricity for them. Once the nation is lit, that country can begin to go through the industrial revolution (which is extremely hard with no electricity) and make it more prosperous. Then, maybe once the nation is wealthier and its people have a level of living that they never dreamed possible, the country can move on to more advanced power sources. However, the move up from the dark will almost certainly be on the back of coal power. [1] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [2] http://www.bloomberg.com... [3] http://www.investopedia.com... [4] http://www.eia.doe.gov...
Standardized testing

I have two main arguments for Standardized Testing: 1. K-12 schooling only exists to prepare you for your life after you graduate, whether that be college, military, joining the workforce, etc. Standardized tests only really matter if you plan to go to college. If you intend to go to college but are against tests, you are sorely misguided as to what goes on in a college setting. Standardized tests prepare students for what is going to happen in college, as well as in most jobs where you will have to complete tasks under a deadline. It is true that school should be a place that values learning and creativity over preparation for the real world, but that is not what we are debating here and therefore is non-topical. If school actually was a place where students were encouraged to learn whatever they desired, then yes, standardized testing would not fit that model. But that is not the reality, and standardized tests fit in with the current schooling system. 2. Standardized testing provides a benchmark to measure students off of. There are numerous nationwide tests within the United States alone, as well as tests that are taken internationally. These tests give us valuable information on the next generation's competence in fields such as reading, writing, and math. While it is true that there are many ways to measure intelligence and that there are plenty of people who are intelligent but do not test well, the majority must be considered over the outliers to give us more accurate data. On top of all that, the fact of the matter is that many other ways of "measuring" intelligence are extremely subjective. To give a hypothetical example, if someone is a talented artist and does incredible progressive art in a style no one has ever seen before, they may still be shunned by those who do not enjoy it. Standardized tests only use certain subjects for a reason; those subjects are not subjective and can be easily measured. There is a right and a wrong answer. Art and Music are certainly things that you can be accomplished in, but they will never be things that can be used to measure a student's intelligence. In regards to the stress argument my opponent presents, welcome to the real world. Students who "give up because they know they are going to fail" will not survive in a high intensity work scenario anyways. Students that do good on homework and schoolwork but bomb test after test are in the overwhelming minority. 99% of the time, if you study for a standardized test and actually want to pass it, you will. The issues presented are only present in small amounts, and standardized testing benefits the students in the long run, as well as our society as a whole by providing relevant information of the intelligence of our youth.