BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
(Pro)Christianity vs (Con)Atheism

So you saying it takes faith to believe in a God? Does it not take more faith to believe that everything that exists came from one single cell? That the entire universe was created by a big bang? an accident? Or even evolution? Evolution can not be considered science because it has not been observed. Law of thermodynamics states chaos can never produce order. The sun comes up, the moon comes out, we have seasons, the tide goes in and out, everything works as a clock, everything is in order. For everything to be in order it must have been designed by a creator. The word universe for example; Uni means single; or one, verse: a statement. The two together meaning one single statement. In the very beginning of the bible God says "Let there be.." which is one single spoken statement.
The NFL is beginning to take away from the game of football with all of its precautions

I guess it all comes down to what you consider to be more important. I personally believe the integrity of the game is the most important, which means that the NFL should not compromise the nature of football just to protect its highly paid athletes who voluntarily assume any risks involved. Player safety should not be taken lightly, but football has survived and thrived as a violent game played by violent players who enjoy sacrificing their bodies to deliver huge hits and make game changing plays. Even the great offensive players suffer from these rules. One thing that separates the great receivers from others is there ability to go up in traffic and make the tough catches, take a big hit, but retain possession of the football. The new rule about hitting defenseless receivers further hinders the ability of defensive players to make plays. If a receiver is allowed to leave his feet to make a catch, with no risk of receiving a vicious hit when the ball arrives, then the receiver will have too big of an advantage over the already disadvantaged corners and safeties. The helmet to helmet contact rule is also being overly enforced. While I understand the risk of helmet to helmet contact, and agree that it should be punished, it shouldn't be punished as aggressively as it is now. If a player blatantly trying to cause harm to another player with helmet to helmet contact, then he deserves a 15 yard penalty and maybe a fine, but if the contact is incidental then I don't think the player should be penalized. James Harrison's hit on Browns receiver Mohamed Massaquoi was helmet to helmet, but I don't think it was intentional, yet he was still fined $20,000 for the hit.
The NFL is beginning to take away from the game of football with all of its precautions

Regarding your argument about the pay, you say it is just like people who work around nuclear reactors. Well I say not so. Anytime there is an opportunity for more safety in the work environment around a nuclear reactor, those new safety guidelines would be implemented. You said that "NFL athletes are assuming the risk of playing football the way it is meant to be played, and are being compensated well for it". Players are at a substantial risk of injury with or without the new rules. However if the NFL can take away a small chance of them being injured, then that is a welcome change. We are in agreement concerning the retirement plans and health care offered for retirees from the NFL. I also believe that new plans should be put into place. With the kickoff, having players running full speed head on is about as dangerous of a situation as you can have in a game. Moving the kickoff up 5 yards is not taking away the chance at a return, but its limiting the chance that the returner is injured. In regards to the quarterback rules, the NFL is correct in putting these rules into place. Quarterbacks must be protected at all costs. One reason is because often times they are defenseless in the pocket. Another is, like you said, because the quarterback position is an invaluable position to a football team. Defensive players do not have to second guess their decisions, they just need to be more aware of the situation. Perhaps this is part of why they are getting paid so well also.
The NFL is beginning to take away from the game of football with all of its precautions

I would agree that safety should be the number one priority, if the players did not have a choice in the matter. My argument on the pay of the players is actually a valid argument, because the point I was making through that argument was that the players have to assume the risks of the job in order to perform their job the way they are supposed to. Just like people who work around nuclear reactors assume the health risks involved in the job for the high level of pay they receive, NFL athletes are assuming the risk of playing football the way it is meant to be played, and are being compensated well for it. In response to the long term health effects, the NFL already assumes some of the costs of the players for injuries they receive while playing. I wouldn't be opposed to the NFL putting more plans in place to give ex-NFL players more health care once they have retired from the league, but don't change the game. For instance, the new rule moving the kickoff up 5 yards is basically eliminating the threat of players such as Joshua Cribbs and Devon Hester as extremely dangerous special teams players. Kick returns used to be the most exciting plays during the game, but now teams might as well just start every drive from the 20 yard line because I doubt any coach will kick to the opposing team's kick returners because of the potential for the big play. Another change to the game made by the NFL's new rules is the over protection of the quarterback. The quarterback is arguably the most important position on a football team, and it is obvious that teams without a quarterback, no matter how talented, have trouble playing at a high level without a capable quarterback. I understand trying to protect these players because of their importance to their teams, but the NFL has gone too far. Since Tom Brady's knee injury, the NFL has implemented a number of excessive rules protecting quarterbacks. These rules put the defensive players at a huge disadvantage because they cannot make contact with the quarterback's helmet, or hit them below the knees, or hit them once the ball has been released. This makes their job much harder, and in order to not commit a critical 15 yard personal foul, a defensive player hitting the quarterback has to second guess the hit almost every time. This takes away from the way defensive players play the game.
The NFL is beginning to take away from the game of football with all of its precautions

While I understand your desire for football to remain the hard-hitting sport that it is, or was. I argue that the safety of the players needs to be priority number one, even above pleasing the die-hard fans that love the violent hits. As the years have gone by, professional football players have been getting progressively stronger and faster than previous generations of players. Along with this increase in speed and strength comes an increase in the velocity and impact of the hits on other players. These violent hits have seriously injured players over the years. These injuries, especially head and knee injuries, have long-term effects. Many players after they retire suffer from their injuries for the rest of their lives. While these injuries can never be completely avoided, safety measures can only help. Your argument about the pay of the players is completely invalid. One can not put a price and the safety and health of a human being. While these precautions that the NFL is implementing may be "taking away from the game", they are a necessary evil to help provide a safer field of play for the athletes.
The NFL is beginning to take away from the game of football with all of its precautions

The NFL is beginning to take away from the game of football with all of its precautions. By this, I mean that these new rules protecting the players are beginning to take away from what football inherently is. There are many different aspects that make up football, one of which is its violent nature. If the NFL does not change the direction it is going, then football at the professional level will cease to be the sport that Americans have come to love. Football is a sport that needs hard hits. It is inherent in the actual game of football. Players are protected by helmets engineered to reduce concussions, and a lot of other padding to protect the rest of the body. I understand that concussions are a serious injury, and precautions should be taken to help prevent those injuries, but not at the cost of changing the way the game is played. These rules are mainly being implemented at the professional level, because the NFL athletes are becoming so strong and fast that injury is more likely to occur. In college and high school, this risk is significantly less because the players are not fully developed yet. The NFL players do not deserve the level of protection they are receiving. The average salary for a player in the NFL is about $1.8 million. By signing the contract to play professional football, I believe that the athlete is assuming the risks that come with the job. By implementing a large variety of new rules and fines, the NFL is actually changing the way certain players approach each play. Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison, who has received over $100,000 in fines, has said that he is adjusting his game to abide by the new rules, but openly mocks the NFL and its commissioner Roger Goodell for the stupidity of these unnecessary rules. It is a shame that great players like Harrison should have to change the way they have been taught to play football since they were small children, just to protect athletes making seven figure salaries. I can only imagine what the legends such as Dick Butkus, Lawrence Taylor, or Joe Green would have done if the NFL had forced them to play the game that is being played today.
Should Jimmy Graham be considered a Tight End or a Wide Receiver

Thank you for accepting, I will make points as to why I believe Jimmy Graham should be listed as a Wide Receiver (WR) in regards to this franchise tag.-Wide Receiver: an offensive player who is positioned at a distance from the end and is used primarily as a pass receiver.-Tight End: an offensive end who lines up close to the tackle.The NFL has been acquiring players of many different body types over the years creating hybrid positions for these players. Defensive Ends become Outside Linebackers, Half Backs become Wide Receivers. Tight Ends become Wide Receivers. The only thing that make Jimmy Graham a Tight End is the TE next to his name on the Saints roster.The new Collective Bargaining Agreement, Signed by Teams and Players states: "a player is whichever position he played the most snaps at in the prior year". Jimmy Graham played 67% off of the offensive line. By definition, this would make him a Wide Receiver.I am all for Hybrid positions. Utilizing players for their strengths, but if a team (the Saints) primarily used their "tight end" as a wide receiver, he should be paid how he was used. Not what is says on a piece of paper in the GMs office, or on the coaches clipboard.
Should Jimmy Graham be considered a Tight End or a Wide Receiver

The NFL New Orleans Saints have put their franchise tag on Jimmy Graham. The Saints listed him as a Tight End, and he is arguing he is a Wide Receiver. This affects his salary using the Franchise Tag. The Franchise Tag is a designation a team may apply to a player scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent. There are three types of Franchise Tags, exclusive, non-exclusive, and transition. J. Graham was assigned the "exclusive tag" so we are only discussing his eligibility. An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams. The player's team has all the negotiating rights to the exclusive player. The rough estimates of the one year salary for Graham: 8 million (as Tight End) or 13 million (as Wide Receiver). This is an open debate (first come first serve). I will allow the other debater to choose his side of whether Graham should be listed as a Tight end or Wide Receiver. First round is to state which position you believe Graham should be listed under his franchise tag. The following rounds will start any and arguments.
The black death was caused by a volcano and not by germs

You did a talk in school about the Black Death so you now think that you are an expert on the Black Death. Sorry. Forget everything that you were taught at school about disease. Its all just a load of nonsense. The truth starts here. 1. There is only one disease. There are not thousands of different diseases as you have been taught. There are not 3 different types of Black Death (bubonic plague). The only disease that exists is called 'vitamin deficiency'. All diseases are either the result of vitamin deficiency or food/chemical poisoning. Note- Chemical poisoning results in vitamin deficiency also. 2. The medical system has been devised specifically to make money out of you for the entirety of your life. They do this by deceiving you into thinking that disease is a complex and difficult problem of which only a doctor knows how to fix. Thus, you will be blackmailed into taking their expensive drugs and services to fix your medical problem. But this is just a scam. 3. Disease first began when humans started to grow crops and drink cows milk. Prior to that, there would have been no diseases. When you eat too much grain foods you will develop a condition called 'leaky gut syndrome' which will allow your gut bacteria to enter your blood stream. This will make you feel sick. This is the true process of disease development. Thus, the bacteria doesn't come from rats on ships, fleas or from the air as you have been told. 4.Volcanoes erupt every now and then and cause the sunlight to be partially blocked. This has happened many times in the past. The Dark Ages were actually dark, because the sun was partially blocked for several centuries due to volcanic activity. When this happens, there will be massive starvation periods where millions of people must die because there aren't enough resources for the large populations. People will have to rely on stored grain foods to survive during these times. If people have to rely on stored grain food and don't have any other foods to supplement their diet, then they will develop diabetic related problems. Symptoms may include - toes, fingers and nose will turn black due to lack of circulation and their immune system glands will become swollen. Thus, we have what is called the 'Black Death'. https://motherboard.vice.com... 5. Thus, germs are a SECONDARY PHASE of the disease process. The PRIMARY CAUSE being vitamin deficiency and food poisoning. I admit, that germs may be present in a Black Death victim, but this debate is about primary causes of disease and not about whether germs are present or not. Thus, without the volcanic causation agent and the grain food toxins, then there would be no disease or germs in the blood what-so-ever. 6. Grain food causes the gut to leak because the grain contains tiny razor sharp edges which cut and damage the lining of the gut. https://articles.mercola.com...
the roman catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use bad popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation.
paddling in schools

"it is the best thing to do when a child does something bad" - Pro"There is little research evidence that physical punishment improves children's behavior in the long term. In contast, there is substantial research evidence that physical punishment puts children at risk for negative outcomes, including increased aggression, antisocial behavior, mental health problems and physical injury." [1][1] Gershoff, Elizabeth (2008) What Research Tells Us About Its Effects on Children, Page 25, Conclusion
paddling in schools

This debate is going to be extremely challenging since I am only allowed 1,000 characters, which is not nearly enough to make a substantial and good argument. I will be doing arguments in segments since I need enough room to cite and to post the argument: According to the American Psychological Association (APA): "Many studies have shown that physical punishment-- including spanking, hitting and other means of causing pain-- can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and mental health problems for children." [1][1] http://www.apa.org...
Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich

"This debate was over if raising taxes on the rich would create more economic growth and more revenue, so my opponent has basically lost this debate." If the intention of this debate was to prove that a known cause leads to a known effect, you are simply lacking critical thinking. Critical thinking employs good judgment, context, and competency in making a decision (in this case, whether or not we should have progressive taxation) - especially a decision which huge implications that concerns the economy. Critical thinking takes into account not only efficiency, but equity and morality as well. Is it efficient to kill every murderer that is guilty after being convicted so we dont have to house them in jail? yes. Is it moral? No. Also, it is not up to you to declare who has already won the debate - it is up to the voters. Equity: I am talking about income taxes. Who starts a corporation? A person at one point who starts the business. How do they start this business? With an income. The income he uses to start the business is separate from the corporate tax rate. People who are born into rich families inherit a monetary. Also, I see that your shallow reply to my key points show that you don't understand the concept at all. Moral reason: there is a moral implication involved in tax rates. Let me set an extreme example for you: Everyone gets taxed at 99% of their income. Would this be moral? No. Who would be able to survive? The richest 1% would still be able to buy basic necessities but neither the middle or lower class would. This is the same fundamental concept of morality in the income tax rate: Those who earn millions, should pay more in taxes than someone that lives in poverty. To say morality doesn't apply to the income tax rate is simply wrong. The point in mentioning the China example is that they were using capitalism focusing solely on economic growth (as you do) and it created numerous problems for the well-being of those living in China so it also would in America. Well-being is the central focus here: just because lowering taxes on the rich would spur economic growth, doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the majority of people within that economy. The point in mentioning the environment, is that it is simply an exploitable resource in the eyes of capitalism. Taxes help to support national parks and the preservation of the environment - funding helped by a progressive tax rate. Your concluding sentence is very arrogant: "...My arguments have been agreed as correct and my opponent's arguments are just plainly irrelevant to this debate." Let the voters decide for themselves. Thank you
Taxes Should be Raised on the Rich

My CaseBasically my opponent said I was right on economic growth and government revenue. As he says here:"You have a sound proof for your argument - which is for economic growth only without taking into consideration equity or morality."This debate was over if raising taxes on the rich would create more economic growth and more revenue, so my opponent has basically lost this debate.However, I will address my opponent's moral and equity arguments anyway.My RefutationsEquityMy opponent is really confused here. I'm talking about income taxes, not corporate taxes. Because of this, I will not counter my opponent's point because he is simply wrong and is not arguing what were debating. Moral ReasonAgain, were talking about the income tax, not a corporate rate. My opponent has seemed to confuse the two.He then talks about China, but in fact there not having good economic growth because their a socialist country. Free market capitalism is the way to go if you want economic growth. Also, I have refuted your quality of life argument. Under every tax cut, income mobility rapidly increased.Finally the environment. This has to do with regulations, not taxation.ConclusionMy opponent is very confused here. My arguments have been agreed as correct and my opponent's arguments are just plainly irrelevant to this debate.