BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Concussions Will Lead To The Death Of The NFL and Football as We Know It

Because of the long and short term effects of concussions on athletes and its current attention by the media, concussions will strangle the NFL out of its Apex position a top the United States Sports World. To big to fail? Not quite one only has to look at Boxing and Horsing racing to see parallels of where football might be in 10-20 years if not sooner.
Boxing

I am going to be arguing that boxing is a dangerous sport which not only causes severe injury but also encourages violence among youth. I will post each premise of the argument below and a defence underneath. 1) Boxing causes severe damage Andy often deaths to those who participate in it. I think this premise is quite obvious. But just many deaths are there in boxing each year? The website www.livestrong.com had this to say: "In the journal article entitled "Boxing -- Acute Complications and Late Sequalae," Hans Forstl, M.D. and his team of researchers in Germany reported that there have been an average of 10 boxing deaths per year since 1900. Of these deaths, over 80 percent were due to head and neck injuries suffered in the ring". One might be tempted to say that the above figure if ten deaths per year is quite small in conparasent to other sports. Even if that were true the amount of people who die is irrelevant. All that matters is that there is one death(which shows the sport is too very violent). 2) Boxing encourages violence among youth. This premise is also relatively obvious. If kids see their favourite boxer on Tv beating the other boxer to a pulp and being celebrated for it they will want to aspire tonne like their hero. 3) Therefore boxing should not be played.
Boxing

In a prime matchup, Ali beats Holmes? I say yes. Both had chins that matched up with each other's punching power. Younger Ali could be had with a great left hook or with a Shaver or Marciano HOF right hand(that's a guess, since old and better-chinned Ali was hurt badly more than once with Shaver's right hand). Both would be the fastest that either had ever fought. Ali was by far faster than Holmes: displaying multiple punch combination ability seamlessly. Holmes was only a 1-2-3 fighter, but had great speed with those punches--only he could not compete with Ali there. Ali was better defensively, too, than Holmes even when he was playing with opponents. Holmes could be hit by much slower opponents without reason. With Ali, it's not entirely certain that you could hit Ali--if he's serious--although, fighters like Frazier or Norton might could have even in his prime(styles lined up well with Ali). Still, that's a big difference over Holmes' defense. You might say that Holmes is a better version of Norton, but Norton applied style; whereas, Holmes would come straight in(as a boxer does) against a fighter that was more accurate and faster/more dynamic. I say Ali wins 10 - 5 at worst and may even win by KO or TKO Holmes if an Holmes' could not take the kind of attack that Ali hit Frazier with(1st or 3rd fights). Who do you say wins?
Evolution is not real.

Organic evolution is not the theory of how life came from non-life as my opponent and Kent Hovind claim. It's mostly a non-issue here, however refuting Hovind's definition does serve to show the calibre of scientist that he is.Definitions of organic evolutionDef. 1: the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms(1)Def. 2: the slow and gradual process by which living organisms have changed from the simplest unicellular form to the most complex multi-cellular forms that are existing today(2)Def. 3: Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations.(3)What my opponent and Hovind are referring to as organic evolution is actually called abiogenesis.(4) This is a gross error in basic scientific vocabulary, something that even high school textbooks teach (mine certainly did). But I suppose it should come as no surprise from someone who touts himself as a doctor and a scientist and yet has no PhD or any type of science degree.(5) Hovind's definitions of micro- and macroevolution are also incorrect but I won't bother to argue that here.Between the the twenty-minute mark and the twenty-three mark of the video my opponent posted, Kent Hovind made the following claims:Claim #1: You can't fuse past iron, therefore evolution provides no explanation for how elements heavier than iron came into beingAccording to the astronomy department of Cornell University, post-iron elements are formed in supernova explosions. To quote, "So much energy is released during a supernova explosion that the freed energy and copious free neutrons streaming from the collapsing core drive massive fusion reactions, long past the formation of iron."(5)Claim #2: We have never observed the birth of a starFalse.(6)Claim #3: We have never observed one kind evolve into anotherWhile this is true, we have been able to make predictions based on our belief that this happens in order to test its accuracy. For example, we would expect that the creatures inhabiting a region would closely resemble the fossils found in the same region. This is the case. Evolution is, in fact, a highly falsifiable theory.(7)I made no arguments in Round 2 because the burden of proof rested on Pro in this debate.Sources1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://www.tutorvista.com...3. http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...4. http://rationalwiki.org...5. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...6. http://news.yale.edu...7. Brockman, John. Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement. New York: Vintage Books. 2006.
Evolution is not real.

Alright smarty pants. Thank you for responding.Note: Organic evolution: How life came from non-life. NOT Macro/micro evolution. Just to make this faster, I am extremely busy, look at this video right here. Start at 20 minutes. Stop at 23 minutes. http://www.youtube.com... "My opponent also used a red herring fallacy when he attempted to change the topic of the debate from whether or not the theory of evolution is scientifically sound to whether or not theistic evolution is heterodox." I did not attempt to change it, I just found it extremely interesting that you are Christian, so I would think you believe in the Bible. That is why I brought in examples from the Bible. I would also like to point out that Con has not made an argument either. Now there are no rounds left. (I should have made more rounds.) If you are really interested in this topic, watch the whole video of the link below. That is it, all is left is for Con to make an argument and possibly win this debate. May the voters choose the best winner. http://www.youtube.com...;
Evolution is not real.

My opponent offered no evidence to support his claims that cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar/planetary evolution, organic evolution (which my opponent mistakenly views as being a separate process from micro and macro evolution) and macro evolution are false. There is, therefore, nothing for me to refute.My opponent also used a red herring fallacy when he attepted to change the topic of the debate from whether or not the theory of evolution is scientifically sound to whether or not theistic evolution is heterodox.In light of these egregious breaches of good conduct, I hope that the voters will disregard my opponent's first affirmative speech.
Hannibal Didn't Make Any Mistakes in the Second Punic War

Hannibal did not receive any of the reinforcements he constantly asked for from Carthage. Carthage simply didn't understand the Roman way of war, to Rome it was either complete destruction of their country or complete destruction of the enemy. Carthage thought that the war was not going to be a huge deal and that the war would have likely had very small consequences for themselves if any. Carthage was responsible for their own defeat, not Hannibal.
America's current education system is a gateway for classism

Unfounded ClaimsSo pro makes the claim that "Americas current education system caters to the needs of a wealthy minority and leaves the majority of Americans cannot afford the education that they need to survive in the real world." This is an unfounded and fallacious argument as basic school education is free and actually mandatory up to a certain age (16 in most states). This type of schooling provides all that is needed to "survive" in the real world. While college is very costly and does help get higher paying jobs this does not necessitate it's type of education for survivial. The initial claim that is caters to the needs of a wealthy minority doesn't actually outline what those needs are or HOW it actually caters to them so it's really not worth responding to. http://c2.com...https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov...This next sentence doesn't actually make sense because of how poorly it's written. I'm sure theres a point in here somewhere but until it's actually apparent I don't think I can even respond to it. Again I've addressed that there actually is no cost for getting a quality education and considering you've done nothing to define quality I can just discredit this as a subjective argument. The Education System Inherently Leads to Nothing More Than KnowledgeSo on to my own personal arguments. Classism: A biased or discriminatory attitude based on distinctions made between social or economic classes. Well by this definition and pros assertion then the school system must be teaching them things to have them form a discriminatory attitude towards those in other classes (Keep in mind that this does not mean LOWER classes this means DIFFERENCES in class so by definition poor people could be classist of higher class people.) right? This is plainly false. School does nothing more than to provide knowledge to students in areas such as English, math, science, social studies, art, and technology. Just take a look at required cirriculums for all these states. Nowhere in here is the class that teaches "Poor People Suck" or "Rich People are Awful 101". http://www.education.state.pa.us...http://www.michigan.gov...http://www.usg.edu...;School doesn't inherintly lead to anything other than the gaining of knowledge. Does going to school help in getting a job and becomming sucessful? Of course! But this does not mean that going to school GUARENTEES you a job. The converse is true also, does NOT going to school hurt your chances of getting a job? Yes but it also doesn't GUARENTEE you won't get one.
Islam is a religion of peace

I think my opponent missed my point, before, even though I made a mistake it was a mistake about something else. I mentioned the fact that Summis and Shi'ites disagree, and my opponent seems to think that this means they disagree with the extremists, owever, the point I was making should have been clear to any Muim not born in the Western world (USA or Europe) and that is that Sunni's and Shi'ites argue amongst each other. Argue is actually a mild term, they fight so badly they kill each other. Which begs the question since they disagree so badly resulting in death, and since the Arab lands are pretty scarce of non believers,.and those non believers that are still around in Arab lands (like Egypt or even Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.) are persecuted and fear for their lives. Is Islam peaceful... hell no, but I guess the question should be SHOULD Islam be peaceful, f followed properly. Well, the vast majority of verses in the Koran say otherwise, starting with surah 9:111 hich talks about a "bargain" hat al-ilah makes, a believers death AND KILLING OTHERS is exchanged for paradise! This passage even goes so far to say that this very same "bargain" is in the Torah and the Gospel, which just goes to show that Muhammad didn't know what the previous Holy Scriptures taught! Then there is the oft quoted "Kill them (unbelievers) whereever you find them, using every strategy of way (including deceipt, like disinformation about being 'peaceful') One thing that my opponent has said about using reason to interpret the Koran is partially true. The factis that Muslims know about the concept of abrogation, which they also know that the earlier peaceful passages (to you, your religion and to me mine, nd others) are replaced by the later passages after Muhammad reached Yathrib and concolidated his power base. His first attack was against a trade caravan that left Mecca and wasn't even going to Medina. This wasn't a "supply train" for his enemies armies, ike I had one Islamopologist (one who defends Islam) suggest. And the tyranny just progressed from their.
Islam is a religion of peace

Even a Muslim who has less knowledge of Islam will tell that extremism is not Islam. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately. . .Always adopt a middle, moderate, regular course, whereby you will reach your target (of paradise)." - Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Hadith 470 When it is said that we should be moderate, it is very important to identify the end points/extremes. To be a moderate Muslim, does it mean that you stay the middle course between Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) and Abu Jahl? Is the moderation supposed to be between these two end points? No. Moderation is never between Islam and Kufr, between belief and disbelief! The moderation of a Muslim is to be between Abu Bakr and Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) Speaking of Interpretation No, you are not supposed to follow the literal meaning. This is mentioned in the Quran itself. "We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an so you people may understand / use reason" (12:2): It's not moderate who are saying not to follow Islam "too literally" it's the Quran. Those who do follow it "too literally" are the one's who are practicing Islam the wrong way. And no, we dont follow just by thinking or guessing. The interpretation is not based on "I guess" and "Maybe". Quran was sent in Arabic, Prophet Muhammad's language so that he can explain it to his companions easily. And that's the true interpretation. During that time of Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) when the hadeeth were being compiled and also the time when Sharia law was forming (Sharia law was way different back then), the hadeeth were collected and before the were confirmed to be authentic they were triple - checked by the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) companions and Umar (radi Allahu anhuma was also one by the way. So now, there is a definite interpretation but over time more interpretations came about and that's not the mistake of Islam and the violent verses or passages have an interpretation and context. Jesus was sent to down to spread the word of Allah (SWT) and he did. Bible was corrupted over time and that's not Allah's mistake. The people who live with Jesus or at least during his time and followed his words are the true people of the book. The reason why Bible has different versions or as we believe that Christians are misguided is not because Allah (SWT) lifted Jesus up or "the crucifixion gone wrong". It's you who created different versions not Allah (SWT). It was St. Paul who messed up with what Jesus told . He told people to break the law and Jesus told that the ones who break the law and tell people to break the law are lowest of the Kingdom. Paul claimed he saw Jesus but Barnabas was a disciple, When Paul was teaching "whatever he was" Barnabas refuted. So if you are gonna say that people were confused because Allah (SWT) lifted him then you are simply wrong.
Islam is a religion of peace

In my opinion, you should have written your opening statement with your challenge. The system seems to be set up that way. But, I can go with the flow and put up a simple statement for my opening and then strengthen it woth subsequent rounds with suppirtive facts, etc. Why is Islam not a peaceful religion? For starters, ISIS, al-queda, Taliban, boko haram, MUSLIM brotherhood etc. All of these organizations recruit MUSLIMS from Muslim mosques, and madrasas (schools - for any non Muslim voter out there). These organizations teach from the Muslim canonized Scripture, and even "moderate" Muslims and experts in Islam (either those who convert out of Islam or just familiar with Islam in geberal like I am) freely admit that "extremist" are taking their Scripture (the Koran) "too literal", meaning thw violent acts of (so-called) "extremsists" re being done because they are doing exactly what their book says to do, not what some other scholar "thinks" that their al-ilah "meant" when he says what he says in the Koran. In other words, they are bwing dutiful obedient Muslims following what their Scripture tells them to do. Not only do we have all of these organizations that are being obedient violent Muslims, but Sunnis and Shi'ites are ina life and death struggle with each other. This isn't just a one sided battle where the "violent" side is trying to eliminate the other side, they are both trying to wipe the other side out of existence. Now, I know what my opponent will likely say (besides explaining away the violent passages of the Koran), that one must look at the religion itself and not it's followers, but as I just stated, these violent acts are being done by people who are following their book "too literalky", and the moderates are the ones saying this. So, the question is begged - does the Koran REALLY meab what it "literally" says, OR did al-ilah not know what his religion would turn in to when he gaves these violent passages in his book? This concept of al-ilah not really knowing the future is also reflected in other silly aspects of the basic tenants of Islam. For example, whe al-ilah supposedly took Jesus and "lifted him up" off the face of the earth (after making the Jews crucify the wrong man), why didn't al-ilah figure out ahead of time that people who were rightfully following Jesus would supposedly be confused about the crucifixion and that Jesus's "gospel" would supposedly be corrupted during the same generation of those "Companions" that followed Jesus around listening directly in person, to His teachings for three years. For anyone to say that Islam is peaceful certainly does not know what they are talking about, and that extends to those "moderates" who choose to follow Islam, they obviously don't know Islam's history. And, if we don't want to judge the religion by the actions of it's current followers, certainly we can judge the religion by examining the history of the religion, in its entirety.
If I were to say a something offensive and then forfeit the last three rounds, I would lose.

My opponent is trying to argue his case in the comments section. The voter should disregard those arguments. http://www.debate.org... Recap: -My opponent's evidence is insufficient to affirm the resolution. -My opponent had Burden of Proof. -Such a debate would likely be removed before the voting period (my opponent conceded this in the 2nd round). Notes: -People should not consider the voting when voting http://www.debate.org..., as my opponent intends. Thank you.
If I were to say a something offensive and then forfeit the last three rounds, I would lose.

My opponent's source is irrelevant because he did not forfeit the last three rounds of that debate.http://www.debate.org... Therefore, he has not met his burden of proof. I have also proved the opposite (he would not lose because the debate will not be up until the voting period), and my opponent has not refuted me. He has effectively conceded the debate. Thank you.
If I were to say a something offensive and then forfeit the last three rounds, I would lose.

PRO would not lose, because if he chose to post something offensive, this debate would be removed from viewing or editted so that there is no longer any offensive material. http://www.debate.org... Therefore, there is no way to achieve a loss for this reason, because either the debate would be removed before the voting period or edited so that there is nothing offensive said, still negating the resolution. Thank you, and I'll now turn it back over to PRO.
If I were to say a something offensive and then forfeit the last three rounds, I would lose.

If I were to say a something offensive and then forfeit the last three rounds, I would lose. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees that in this case, the word "lose" means to have less points at the end of the voting period. This way, whoever my opponent can not immediately vote for me, making it a win on my profile, then change their vote later, making them win. The time to argue is one day so it move move quickly as I will be forfeiting the last three rounds of this.
Obama should declair a state of emergency because of climate change

First off, The President does not have the power to force factories to produce electric cars. The reason why the President had the power to do so in World War II is because America was in a wartime environment. Read the Constitution 2. A Majority of electric power comes from Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas. That is according to the EIA. So your argument falls apart. 3. A recent analysis by the Energy Information Administration estimates that wind-generated electricity from onshore wind turbines costs $97 per megawatt-hour. That"s about 50 percent more than the same amount of electricity generated by natural gas, which the EIA estimates costs $63. Offshore wind is even more expensive, coming in at $243 per megawatt hour. The least-expensive form of solar-generated electricity""the type generated by photovoltaic panels""costs $210, or more than three times as much as the juice produced by burning natural gas. And who will pick up the tab ? The American consumer. 4. Electric cars are a very bad idea. According to a Forbes magazine article, a Nissan Leaf 'costs more than twice as much ($35,430 vs. $17,250) as a comparable Nissan Versa, but it is much less capable. The Leaf accelerates more slowly than a Versa and has only about 25% of the range." Also from the same magazine article, "On Wednesday, Jan. 26 a major snowstorm hit Washington D.C. Ten-mile homeward commutes took four hours. If there had been a million electric cars on American roads at the time, every single one of them in the DC area would have ended up stranded on the side of the road, dead. And, before they ran out of power, their drivers would have been forced to turn off the heat and the headlights in a desperate effort to eek out a few more miles of range." Your turn. Sources. 1.http://www.forbes.com... 2.http://www.eia.gov... 3. http://constitutionus.com...