BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: In the United States, steroid usage should be permitted for all sports.

Contention 1: All athletes can use steroids if they choose to First of all there have been no notable athletes that you can think of off of the top of your head that have had shown any undesirable affects of steroids on the playing field. Steroids have contributed to sports nothing but production. Also it is no secret that steroids already are a part of sports, for example in 2002 Ken Caminiti posted an article that said "It is no secret what is happening in baseball, at least half the guys are using steroids. They joke about it with eachother. And the side affects of steroids are very much exaggerated, the death rates of playing college and professional football are 50 to 100 times higher than even the wild exaggerations about steroids. More people have died playing Baseball than using steroids. (1) Contention 2: Athletes do not have to tell anyone of they are taking steroids If an athlete takes steroids he is not trying to tell a kid or teenager that idols him that it is OK or that he should do it all that athlete is doing is being human. And to be a human is to be better, or at least try to be better. The whole point of professional sports, or sports at any level, college, high school, etc is for entertainment and isn't it more entertaining to watch a sport that is more entertaining. The definition of a professional athlete is an athlete who is the best in the world at the sport they do and in ounce again in order to make the sport more entertaining athletes should be able to enhance there abilities with the usage of steroids.
Resolved: In the United States, steroid usage should be permitted for all sports.

In this debate, as the Con I will be arguing that steroids should not be allowed in sports. I would primarily like to point out that according to the wording of the resolution, in order for the Con to win, I need only prove that steroids should not be allowed in one sport. This said, I will not only prove why steroids should not be allowed in several sports, but I will also show steroids in general should not be allowed. Contention 1: Athletes who choose not to use steroids will be disadvantaged. Due to the fact that steroids can have serious side effects such as kdney failure, liver failure, heart risks, depression, risk for infections and many others, the athletes that choose not to use steroids will be disadvantaged which means that athletes will be pressured into using steroids which means they will have a few good years of performance but after that severe health problems will greatly lowers life expectancy. (1) Contention 2: Athletes should be role models. If all or most professional athletes are taking steroids, they are having a negative influence on the youth and society in general. Younger athletes will then start taking steroids at younger ages which will result in those teens having severe health problems, even before they make it to the professionals. http://www.peelregion.ca... (1)
The drinking age should be lowered to age 18.

I'd like to start this by welcoming my opponent to the debate. I do not believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. Being 18 myself, I see drinking at any age to be simply a form of entertainment. This is where one might say, "Well, if it is just a form of entertainment, why not extend to offer to 18 year olds?" This is where I put my foot down. There are very few benefits of alcohol to begin with and no positive benefits of alcohol that are necessary to have at age 18, and therefore, there is no reason for people between the ages of 18 and 20 to NEED to drink. To back this claim, I found this quote at http://www.peele.net... : "Since generally only older individuals die of heart disease, the benefits noted for alcohol apply only to those over the age of fifty." Now, with the positive effects out of the way, I'd like to move on to the negative effects of alcohol consumption and how they might affect people between ages 18 and 20. Alcohol at any age can lead to an increased risk of fatty degeneration of the liver, infection of the liver, liver cirrhosis, sleeping disorders, sexual problems, infection of the esophagus, infection of the stomach, infection of the pancreas, premature dementia, cancer of the mouth, throat, larynx, intestines and breasts, hypertension, and heart problems. Enough said? I believe so. And scientific studies have shown that, though age 18 is considered adulthood, the organs of the average human being are not yet fully developed. While organs are developing, they are more susceptible to the negative effects listed above. The aforementioned effects are only effects on the body, but the effects on the mind can be far worse. Alcohol inhibits the transfer of memory, lowers your personal judgment, impairs your vision, and greatly lowers your reaction time. Drunk driving kills approximately 17,000 people each year (http://ask.yahoo.com...), and the sad part is that most of the people that die weren't the ones that were drinking. Try this on for size: "Underage drinkers account for 11 percent of all the alcohol consumed in the U.S., according to a new report released by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University." And how about this: "Almost 8.6 million youths ages 12 to 17, over one third of this age group, used alcohol in the past year, more than 650,000 (2.6 percent) reported heavy alcohol use, and nine million engaged in at least one delinquent behavior in the past year." (http://alcoholism.about.com...) With this said, I'd now like to allow my opponent to state their opening argument.
The drinking age should be lowered to age 18.

I also would like to bring up that lowering the drinking age to 18 or lower like it already is in several countries is not a bad thing because it teaches tolerance and moderation. Moderation is a must and that is what it promotes look at the European model. Look in the above to my united Kingdom point it is untouched. It is a privilege to drink alcohol not a need. Also, we are debating the drinking age be lowered no that 18-20 year olds NEED to drink. That is a different topic for a different debate. Isn't also a privelege or a choice to fight for your country? In some cases yes, in others were your drafted no. Well, were not talking about smoking so that age doesn't matter. Also, enlisting is not VOLUNTARY rather it is MANDATORY that every 18 year old male sign the papers in case of DRAFT. old enough to fight but not to drink. We are not debating the effects of alcohol but rather whether it should be legal or not. There are positive and negative effects for everything. The policing is easier when it is public as i have stated. he does not deny that. You can save more lives by making it legal because underage people will not be drinking heavily and not be able to call anyone if they get hurt or there friends pass out. This is because they do not call because they will get into higher or deeper trouble. By having it legal it will be better to help people who abuse it. But it will teach moderation as shown above so it will not be abused as much. . The fact that most college-age youth cannot legally drink alcohol makes many of them want to drink...and drink in large quantities...more than they would if it were legal. In the 1920s, the Prohibition laws banned the manufacture and sale of alcohol in the United States. This law failed miserably as alcohol consumption became rampant behind closed doors. By 1933, the law was overturned. Some researchers argue that raising the drinking age from 18 to 21 is, as Smith says, "America's second experiment with Prohibition" which is "no more effective than the first one. One of the most telling points on their side is that drinking bans tend to increase alcoholism. During Prohibition, the U.S. rate actually increased, and economists have discovered something called the Iron Law of Prohibition: The more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes. Which sounds a lot like binge-drinking, doesn't it? So, in reality the higher drinking age increases younger age drinking and by lowering the drinking age we can stop this injustice. I would like again to talk about it is not a need so therefore the need or neccesity arguement isn't there we are just talking about legalizing the drink age not whether or not it is a need to drink at that age. Because as shown it is a choice. Thank you i look forward to my opponents closing arguement
Chrono Trigger vs. Final fantasy VI

Characters: While you said Chrono Trigger had better characters, I have to disagree. FFVI manages to have both quality and quantity with its characters. While I can't go over every character, I will try and hit the major ones. I'll start off with Terra, the "main" protaganist. Terra was born in the Esper world, though she was captured by Emperor Gestahl. Kefka later puts a slave crown on her, which forces Terra to obey Kefka's orders. When she is finally rescued and free of the slave crown, she is amnesiac, confused, distrustful, scared. Terra is very emotional (sad) throughout the game, and leaves her friends twice. After failing to stop Kefka from destroying the world, Terra finds herself unable to fight. "I don't know why these kids need me... And it's not like there's anything forcing me to protect them. It's the strangest feeling... But once that feeling took root inside of me, I lost the strength to keep on fighting. " Square Enix Final Fantasy VI Advance (in English) 2007-02-05 In the end she manages to pull herself together and joins the others to fight Kefka. When Kefka asks why they fight, Terra answers "love". When Kefka is finally killed, Terra uses the rest of her power to help the others get to safety. Because of her love for the children she took care of, she survives and becomes fully human (she was half-Esper, half-human). Throughout the game she undergoes change, finds the strength she never had. "Thank you... You all helped me understand what it means...to love. I'll fight! I'll make this world a place where life can flourish, and children can grow up in peace!" Square Enix Final Fantasy VI Advance (in English) 2007-02-05 Next up is Shadow, a lone mercenary who would "kill his best friend for the right price". His only companion is his dog Intercepter, and shows disdain to everyone else. However, he saves other party members multiply times, one example being where he saves the group from a burning building. His 'ultimate sacrifice' is when he faces Kefka so the other party members can escape. (You choose whether or not he lives or dies. I assume you wait for him). When the group goes and faces Kefka again, Shadow says "friends and family are nice to have..." Under a facade of a cold blooded killer and loner, Shadow has proven to be a trustworthy 'friend'. Celes is another interesting character in FFVI. Celes starts out independent and aloof from the group, but begins to become attracted to Locke. Throughout the game we see their relationship flesh out. One of her more memorable scenes was at the opera house, with Celes impersonating Maria. https://m.youtube.com... The last character I will go over is Cyan. He arguably has the most tragic story of all, the entire nation of Doma, including his wife and son, killed by Kefka. He later has to see the spirits of the victims of Doma, including his wife and son, board the train he was just on (Phantom Train). He is forced to watch them depart, only further adding to his grief. I'm running out of time, so I'll stop there for now. Sorry for taking so long, will be writing more in the future.
Corporal punsihment for children

"Pro says that corporal punishment is quick and effective, but it's not." There are exceptions sure but exceptions don't count. " Kids start to feel bad and there is a point when some decide that they will not take that anymore and rebel or start to react negatively which prove that in long term cases it does not work effectively." This is a common or in other words a commonly heard case when children are abused. There is no evidence of this in schools when corporal punishment is applied nor in average families, instead this practice is held due to its quick and effective nature. "Aldo the other oart may go into depression because when they get hit or spanked they feel worse than when you talk to them and explain them what they did wrong and why it is wrong." Same objection as above. " Well you can discipline your students without using corporal punishment, for example, in school today they don't use corporal punishment and kids turn out okay." As I have pointed out, under the spoiled section theres a link where we read that society is becoming more and more violent. Extra Arguments: 1." Even in school when beating is uses the kids lose respect for the adult who is inducing the beating, also they lose self-respect and they start act mischievously" Both statements are unheard of when corporal punishment is moderated. 2. "They learn that it is not wrong to use force in human interactions." Elaborate. 3. "Kids also make many visits to the hospital for nerve damage or even broken bones." I proposed controlled corporal punishment and not battering.
Corporal punsihment for children

Sorry for forfeiting but I was stuck without Internet for about one week because there were some malfunctions without the connection. Pro says that corporal punishment is quick and effective, but it's not. Kids start to feel bad and there is a point when some decide that they will not take that anymore and rebel or start to react negatively which prove that in long term cases it does not work effectively. Aldo the other oart may go into depression because when they get hit or spanked they feel worse than when you talk to them and explain them what they did wrong and why it is wrong. Pro also states that undisciplined kids may Become tyrants. Well you can discipline your students without using corporal punishment, for example, in school today they don't use corporal punishment and kids turn out okay. EXTRA ARGUMENTS: 1. Even in school when beating is uses the kids lose respect for the adult who is inducing the beating, also they lose self-respect and they start act mischievously. 2. They learn that it is not wrong to use force in human interactions. 3. Kids also make many visits to the hospital for nerve damage or even broken bones.
Corporal punsihment for children

O Observations My opponents title: 1."Corporal punsihment for children" Has the word punishment misspelled. 2.We will be focusing on corporal punishment in schools "This debate will be more about how corporal punishment works at schools". I am free to assume that there's no corporal punishment outside of school and vice versa. 3.I can begin in round one "My opponent will start this debate with his arguments" O Burden of Proof Is equal. O Definitions Corporal Punishment: "physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult in authority." Dictionary.com Child: "a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children." Dictionary.com O Notes Interestingly my opponent said "Corporal punsihment for children". That's right we're talking about punishment for children and not against them. One must realize that corporal punishment and child abuse are two different things .One acts as an attention getter in a controlled atmosphere, while the other is used intentionally to harm the child in a physical manner. My opponent may not under any circumstances say what kind of corporal punishment I support. In this debate you have mentioned no specifics hence I get to add my own details. O Arguments 1. Quick and Effective Corporal punishment is quick and effective. I don't think that this can be argued. 2. Being Spoiled Undisciplined children are in danger of becoming tyrants. Todays society is a good example: http://www.leaderu.com... 3. Parents We can argue until the bears take over this site but ultimately its our parents choice: " Many school districts also offer parents an opportunity to state whether or not they wish corporal punishment to be used on their sons and daughters. Typically, the parents fill out a form which is filed in the school office. In many districts this is an "opt-out" system. In others an "opt-in" system applies, whereby no student is so punished without explicit parental consent." http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you
Creation over evolution

I know plently pieces of usless information the bible claims. It's worth nothing and not a proper source considering the "god" of the religion didn't even write it. Points of proof: "1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended. 2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. 3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged. 4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other." http://www.evolutionfaq.com...
Creation over evolution

exactly...they had to evolve from something on earth..Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements – all of which are found in the earth. like it states in Genesis..Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). its only invalid because you know nothing of it. Where are the transitional bones... reality is that if evolution was true there would be millions upon millions of very clear transitional fossils. but there aren't furthermore nothing is evolving.. the way evolution supposes theirs no evolving we see today "of new kinds"
Creation over evolution

The bible is not an accurate source of proof and therefore every time you cite the bible your argument is invalid. Charles Darwin gave light toa theory that can prove evolution is real. Because lower intellegence level animals minds can develop to an extent (i.e., sniffer dog), it's plausible to conclude that the human mind is a highly developed evolution from a lower intellengce animal. From Darwin's "THe Descent of Man" (1871) "man is constructed on the same general type or model as other mammals. All the bones in his skeleton can be compared with corrsponding bones in a monkey, bat, or seal." All of these animals were on earth before humans. Humans didn't pop up out of no where (i.e., Adam and Eve) and had to have evolved from something already on earth.
Creation over evolution

well there is no SCIENTIFIC PROOF that God does not exist... it evan states in the bible that Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements. Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously. people today find this out...when the bible states these occurrences how many years ago... wheres your proof? The bible even talks about fossils Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).
Creation over evolution

Many of there therioes we see today...are indeed found in the bible...The Bible states that God created life according to kinds(Genesis 1:24) how God refers to "kinds" agrees with the scientific observations.."THERE ARE HORIZONTAL GENETIC BOUNDARIES BEYOND WHICH LIFE CANNOT VARY"..dogs produce dogs...roses produce roses and so on...WE DON'T SEE ONE "KIND" EVOLVING INTO ANOTHER "KIND" AS EVOLUTION SUPPOSES why are we no longer evolving or anything in that matter. SCIENTIST THEMSELVES ARE PROVING EVOLUTION TO BE WRONG. One of the most devastating critiques of evolution is Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: The Free Press, 1996). Dr. Behe serves as Associate Professor at Lehigh University. He shows conclusively that the complexity of organisms in our world cannot be explained by any theory of evolution. He demonstrates that plants, animals and man were designed. They were planned. Dr. Demski admits that his own work on intelligent design would have been much more difficult without the work of Dr. Behe. If you have a friend who is committed to evolution, you would do him or her a favor by presenting Michael Behe's book to that person. It is not an easy book to read but it is faith-building work.(http://www.gospelhour.net...) The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: "In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, "Let there be light (energy)." No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.