BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality should be more accepted in society.

"But if a homosexual male or female who has done nothing wrong, and who loves someone as much as a straight person, they should have the right to marry." The very definition of "marry" goes against your statement. mar"riage G2;marij noun 1. the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. Research has shown that homosexuality is mostly psychological. Some people are more prone to it than others. If homosexuality was accepted in society, then more people would be homosexual. http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com... This would lead to a decrease in population, which affects everything. Most religious institutions are against homosexuality, not the condition, but ACTS of homosexuality. Here, for example, is the Bible and Quran. http://christianity.about.com... http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... "If it was more accepted than this number would drop." Only 1.5% of deaths are from suicide. Not all suicides are from homosexual-based reasons. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Homosexuality should be more accepted in society.

1. Suicide in the LGB community. Suicide in the LGB community is a very bad thing. Studies done in 2006 show that suicide is more than 2 times likely than there straight peers.[1] This is majorly from their family friends and society being against homosexuality. If it was more accepted than this number would drop. 2. Rights First off I do not believe everyone should have the right to marry. But if a homosexual male or female who has done nothing wrong, and who loves someone as much as a straight person, they should have the right to marry. 3. Discrimination Homosexual people do not choose to be gay. [2] studies show that homosexuality is caused by hormonal processes and early childhood development. Yes, they choose to act on these impulses. But this can lead to depression and suicide. Why should people's feelings be suppressed even through it is not harming anyone? [1] http://www.suicidology.org... [2] http://www.godandscience.org...
High School football should be banned

I'll start with an example: Kid 1 plays football in high-school. They teach him how to tackle correctly, tackle at the knees, avoid tackling with your helmet, etc. --http://kidshealth.org...#-- this website even provides some more tips to be safe. These safety lessons do exist and do reduce the rate of accidents. In this example, the kid moves into college where everyone has been trained in high-school and altogether the amount of accidents is a bit lower than without any previous knowledge of football. Kid 2 cannot play football in high-school, but wishes he could. He goes into college and gets onto the football team (along with many other people who don't know the rules/safety guides. Accidents are easily prevents. People tackle ramming with their helmets, or stand strong when being tackled (instead of absorbing shock). This causes many more accidents. I world with high-school football will teach us how to prevent accidents later in life. If a family member died, of course everyone would feel awful. If that happened personally, I might fear the violence in such a sport. This would cause me to do as much as possible to CONVINCE PEOPLE NOT TO JOIN. Many people might play, many people might not. The answer is not banning, its convincing people to not join. Also, there are still people who want to play football who would believe its unbelievable that the government is banning a 'fun' sport. In Conclusion: I do not deny injuries are caused in football. PRO seems to think because they have proven injuries happen, that they should win. This is not how the debate should be handled. Voting CON means injuries would be prevented by teaching, or people choosing (or being convinced) to not do football. In PRO, people still play football out of school (probably without pads) or in college/NFL meaning more serious injuries. You also must consider the argument that PRO has neglected to respond to this entire debate: FREEDOM. Freedom is not just an 'American' trait, we should all have access to it as it is one of the core values and meanings to life itself. WE SHOULD CHOOSE WHAT TO DO WITH OUR BODIES. That's right, why would the government stop there. It is a little thing called, "Government Overreach". Swimming can cause people to drown, maybe the government should ban high-school swimming. Soccer gets injuries all the time maybe it should be banned. You know what? The majority of sports evolve into harm so we might ban all high-school sports to avoid harm. The government does not have this right to intervene in what we do with ourselves. If i know i can get injured by playing football, then if it is a risk I want to take, I should do it. If not, then I won't do it. This avoids literally all the problems PRO talks about. PRO's last line is: "I think I have proved a serious point and think I deserve the vote." Just because injuries exist is no reason to vote PRO, you should vote CON to keep our freedom. Thanks PRO for the debate!
High School football should be banned

Con stated in the second round that high school football teaches players how to avoid serious injuries yet most accidents happen by accident. For example, if you turned around really quickly and collided with another player and hit each others head, that could cause a serious concussion. Con also mentioned that banning football would cause an uproar, but think about it, what if one of your family members had recieved to many concussions then died, how would you feel? Although most people would still play, there would be less high schoolers getting concussions and would therefore decide on a carreer in football, in the future and focus more on their studies in high school I stand by my previous argument by saying that football should be banned. I recently read an article about former football player Randle El. He was an electric athlete versatile enough to run a route on one play and throw a beautiful spiral on the next, as he did in super Bowl XL. He had mentioned that his body has begun to betray him before his 40th birthday, is hard to fathom. Randle didn't hesitate when asked if he regrets playing football, "If I could go back,I wouldn't" he stated. He mentioned that he would continuosly ask his wife things and she would always tell him that she already told him that. By playing football you could seriously mess up your brain or even worse, die. I think I have proved a serious point and think I deserve the vote
High School football should be banned

I have two purposes of this round: 1. Extend and explain my original three points. 2. Respond in detail to PRO's arguments. To be clear, all PRO has done is provide 3 examples of people who have either learned or experienced the injuries of football players and replied to my military example. These are the three points of #2 i will respond to. 1. Extend and Explain PRO has seriously messed up this debate. Completely disregarding all the thesis claims of my points which i will reiterate here: Culture - Having this not being responded to means you can vote CON now. People consider is culturally significant and would cause public uproar if banned. It also begs to inevitability of football - the PRO has not answered that if it was so bad and has been around so long, then why hasn't it been banned. Banning is useless - Biggest independent voter if you want to vote. Football is inevitable and the injuries will still happen either later in life or in another sport. Considering PRO dropped my argument that playing in high-school teaches players ho to avoid serious injury by teaching the right way to play, in a world without high-school football but still college football, many people will go in much stronger in college without knowing the correct form, or how to avoid injuries, however many will be much stronger than in high-school. Therefore in the interest of heath conditions, you must vote CON on this argument. Freedom - Another voter, all that was replied to was the example, but PRO neglected the thesis claim of this argument. They risk their own body and they know the risk that they could cause harm to them self. If we don't have freedom to do what we want with ourselves, then what does life even become at that point? I'll tell you, objects of the state. We can be counted and used by the government and that would be our purpose without freedom. I recommend looking to the book Homo Sacer, by Agamben, its very interesting and I'm currently reading another one of his works, The State of Exception (this doesn't relate as much). 2. Respond The PRO's examples help CON more than PRO. They show examples of the devastating and heart-breaking injuries that people face and makes me very sad, but the last example shows (The Movies Concussion) shows people who exercise their freedom and simply reject doing football because of the physical damage possible. This shows that banning is useless when people can simply not do it. The Military Example: So I guess this example isn't the best, yet since i presented it I will stick with it and defend it. Obviously there are different reason for joining the military and playing football - and i am not comparing those AT ALL. I completely respect and gratefully thank soldiers and their duty to our country. I am simply saying under the logic of PRO, any activity that is life-threatening should be banned, even if it is the own individual's choice. I am proud to stand CON: High-school football should not be banned.
High School football should be banned

First of all you mentioned how the military is risking your life so we might as well ban the military, although you can't join the military unless you are 18 but people will play football when they are younger than 18. Another thing is, the military is saving peoples life, even though you could be killed you die knowing you helped your country. Whereas football, you can die from just a few small concussions A lot of people are seriously thinking about their future with football. For example, recently after watching the movie Concussion, a Pennsylvania football star, turned down scholarship offers over concerns about his long-term health. John Castello rejected offers from more than a dozen football championship subdivision schools. Castello arrived at his decision upon seeing the story of Dr.Bennet whose 2002 discovery of a degenerative brain disease caused by the sort of repetitive head trauma that is common in football was portrayed by Will Smith in a film released this past December. Another thing is, for every one NFL player, there are 2,000 YOUTH players. That's close to four million youth players and the vast majority of research on impact-related brain injuries has been on the college and professional level.
High School football should be banned

I have three observations: 1. History/Culture 2. Banning is useless 3. Freedom 1. Football is a major part of American history (considering you used examples within the United States. It has been around forever both on the high school, college, and professional level. Considering this ban, you might as well ban ALL football. Also, many people are extremely passionate about football and consider it even a family tradition to play. This leads me into my next point: P.s - if it was considered bad it probably should've been banned a while ago. 2. Banning is useless. Football is inevitable. It will still be played in college and professionally. Meaning injuries will still happen and this is useless. Actually, playing during high-school will teach the correct way to play and avoid serious injures when the students are younger, rather than beginning in college where injuries are much more severe. Even if football was banned on all schools (including educational and professional) - people will play WITHOUT PADS individually in their off time. This will at least double the risk of danger. Also banning will not include other sports, people who deeply love sports will switch to still intense sports, like Hockey or Boxing - both of which have devastating potential. 3. Freedom. Banning football would make it illegal. This is not a good idea. This is because laws are meant to prevent harm from one to another. Key phrase there: Laws are to prevent harm to others. This topic is an example of one joining football knowing it can cause harm. They are essentially risking their own body. This means that they have put them self in danger. This ban makes no sense - if i want to risk myself i should be able to do it. I have some examples: A - Military I know I am putting my life at danger if I join the military. I know I have an external cause to motivate me to do this task. (Soldiers protect the lives of their citizen, I want to deeply thank all of you who may be reading for that) Does this mean it should be banned to join the military? Under the same logic that PRO illustrates, it should be. I am proud to say High School football should not be banned.
High School football should be banned

I believe football should be banned because of potential health hazards/concussions. In fact the New York times reports that on September 30th, concerns about player safety intensified when Evan Murphy who was a star quarterback at Warren Hills regional high school, which is located in New Jersey, collapsed on the field after getting hit, then died soon after. He is actually the third player to die directly in a game that season. Even compared to college football, high school players are significantly more likely to suffer catastrophic injuries. In 2014 a football player named Kostageorge, who played for Ohio state university, was found dead in an apparent suicide on November 30th. Concerns about the long term affects of head injuries sustained by footballers, continue to mount. A day after Karageorges death, a study had been released that suggested sports related head impacts can cause changes in the brain even when there are no outward signs of concussions.
Any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical

Any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. 4 rounds, 2 week voting period and 8k max. word rounds. First round is for acceptanceSecond and third rounds are for arguments and counter-arguments as we see fitFinal round if for counter-arguments and concluding (no new arguments)I will accept burden of proof; I intend to demonstrate that not only theists argue illogically for intelligent design, but that they can do nothing but. Be prepared...
Any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical

I apologise for the misunderstanding and I will leave arguments involving complexity aside. However, to argue that the world/universe is orderly, therefore a god must exist, is an argument from final consequence. And so, an argument for the existence of god cannot be formulated from this assertion purely (so, saying that the world is orderly does little for a debate on God). My opponent tries to enter a debate in which there is a dichotomy between religion and “alternatives”. Again, I am arguing that this debate need not take place (especially in this debate, considering the title) because the concept of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is fundamentally flawed. I need not try to explain the origins of the universe, as my opponent insists that I do, because we are not arguing the topic. Until the concept of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is passed as possible, it makes absolutely no sense to argue whether one exists. It is not of relevance to this particular debate whether everything, under natural law, has a cause and effect; I am not arguing that a god cannot have created the universe. Instead, I am arguing that an infinitely-intelligent, creator god cannot logically exist, as the components required for such a god are contradictory. In other words, I am arguing against the existence of a specific type of god, not in the broader sense that my opponent continues to argue. As to the illegitimacy of The Bible, the Bible cannot be used, within itself, to prove the existence of God (as my opponent recognises). Perhaps, if we were talking about a different type of god, historical documents and whatnot could prove the Bible’s legitimacy, and therefore make an argument for that god. The Bible is still debated, as my opponent suggest, due to its compelling nature and whatnot, however, again, the nature of infinitely-intelligent, creator god is inherently contradictory, and thus it would be illogical to even consider the existence of one. Therefore, we need not even discuss The Bible. Conclusion All my opponent’s arguments involve assuming that an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is possible, whilst I make a clear argument against the possibility of such a god. Sure, they are well-written, arguments as to the possibility of a god, it’s just that they don’t address the serious problem of an infinitely-intelligent, creator god being contradictory in nature. I thank temiller3 for the debate, and I hope that reading this has not been a waste of time for you.
Any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical

My opponent responds to my complexity argument by arguing that complexity is difficult/can’t always be seen. This does not refute my argument. Something cannot be so complex that it had to be designed, regardless of how hard it is to see the complexity. However, he does not take this route in argument, so continue to argue this would be to straw-man his argument. Yes, the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the engineer is displayed in the order and functionality of that which is engineered. However, as you say, if the complexity cannot be understood, then it cannot be said whether this was a creation of intelligence. Therefore, if God was trying to indicate his existence, by creating something so complex that it can’t be understood is counter-productive, and hence a product of lack of intelligence. It is of little use to quote Bible verses in order to prove God’s logical existence, seeing as Bible has yet to be proven beyond doubt (hence why faith is required), but arguably, it does have evidence in favour of it. However, if the concept of the Biblical God can be disproven, then we need not argue the accuracy or validity of the Bible’s contents. Since I have provided framework which suggests that such a god is impossible, then that should be addressed, rather than arguing that ‘we don’t understand the mysteries of God’s creation,’ as that premise is unfounded. Again, if a god wanted to be known, then he/she shouldn’t have made the world complex beyond our comprehension, as we (humans) cannot determine much from it, hence it is a product of lack of intelligence which contradicts the nature of God. “everything physical must come from something, we do not get physical matter from nothing. This leaves us with two choices;” No, this is a false dichotomy. Considering that you argued that the world is complex beyond our imagination, and that “the intelligence of the engineer is displayed in the order and functionality of that which is engineered, it is possible that the universe could be explained another way that is beyond our comprehension. It could have potentially been created by a god, but a god that is omnipotent and a creator is, by nature, contradictory. My logical process, which argues that such a god is contradictory, has not been addressed. Such a god is, by nature, contradictory. To argue in any sense involving the existence of such a god is illogical from the start, hence any attempt at arguing for an infinitely-intelligent, creator god is illogical. I understand that my counter-argument is terse, yet I feel no need to waste words for the sake of aesthetics.
'2' is an example of a number

All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. But the real nature of things, we shall never know, never. Numbers are an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations and for showing order in a series or for identification. For the real nature of things, numbers may either not exist, or vary. It is our conciousness that guides us to these conclusions. They may be true, they may be false. However, like you said, 2 is "definitely" a number.
'2' is an example of a number

'2' is a number. '2' is also a numeral and a glyph. But importantly, for the purposes of this debate, '2' is a number.Definitions: 1. A mathematical object used to count, label and measure.2. An arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations. (from: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2 is 'definitely' a number according to these definitions of the word 'number'.
weather or not age should be a limiting factor

OK that my be true but what about all the debate going on about lowering all the standards that you mentioned that means that people are realizing that the new generation are becoming more mature and I bet nine out of ten times if were to ask a kid about sex that would be able to telling you about it and that if you asked a 13 year old what the wanted form life and had a back up plan as appose to most adults these days no knowing what they want are just plain doing the wrong thing. the world is change and we need the laws to accommodate those changes.
weather or not age should be a limiting factor

It’s not just in the case of alcohol. It also applies to driver’s licenses, legal sexual intercourse, smoking, voting, having the ability to consent as an adult and a plethora of many other things. These laws exist to not only protect the interest of an individual, but also to protect the interest of society. It is appropriate that there be an age limit because, to reiterate, with age comes wisdom, knowledge, understanding, maturity, experience, and most importantly brain development. A more mature brain allows people to make better decisions and think through their decisions better. This being said, it is more appropriate then that things that are risky, such as drinking or being able to get a drivers license, have an age limit on them. This age limit allows the freedom to still exist with appropriate restrictions in order to still keep society a safe place. Laws are not based on exceptions. Just because there may be a very responsible and mature thirteen year old doesn’t mean they all are. In the same, just because there may be an irresponsible and immature adult doesn’t mean that all adults are that way. Laws must be placed on a general basis, and not on exceptional factors. Fact is, younger people are going to be more inclined to do something stupid than an adults is. That being said, age limits are still justified. Age limits are what keep 10 year olds from driving on the street, 11 year olds from smoking and drinking, 15 year olds from enlisting into the military, 30 year old men from having sexual intercourse with 14 year old girls, and 13 year olds from voting. I think it would be best if age limits stayed how they are.
weather or not age should be a limiting factor

Age should be a limiting factor in that with age comes wisdom, knowledge, understanding, maturity, experience, and brain development. Older people will be more inclined to make better decisions due to these things. The stages into adulthood are primarily a learning experience, and to allow those in these stages power that would could only normally be possessed by adults would be not only dangerous to the children, but also potentially dangerous to those around them. For example, if alcohol had no age limit, teenagers and adolescents may be more inclined to make more poor decisions with alcohol. It is even worse when factoring in that the affects of alcohol are dangerous to people who are not fully developed. In order to insure a safe society, and insure the well being of those who are not yet adults, it is best that age limits be appropriately laced.