BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Morality of the Bible is Outdated

Many people, especially in the United States, still center their lives around the Bible and its teachings. The Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments are held up as our foundations of morality, and in my mind, mistakenly so. Secularist advances, backed by research and experimentation in fields such as game theory, economics, evolutionary biology, psychology, sociology, and neurology provide evidence that there are better principles around which we can organize our lives, principles which will consistently lead to more prosperous lives and more harmonious societies.Resolved: The Morality of the Bible is Outdated, and Inhibits Human Prosperity and Harmony Compared to Modern Secularism.First round is for acceptance. Burden of Proof rests on Pro.
Logic is unuasable

AHA! You are invalidating my argument, which is against logic, by using logic! You are essentially Justifying logic with logic, saying logic is true because logic is true! Circular reasoning fallacy! HAHA WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO NOW!!!! USE MORE LOGIC?! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! SO FUCKkING LAUGhABLE. LOGIC IS SO FUCkKING GAY! OH? WHATS THAT? THIS STATEMENT IS ILLOGICAL? HA! AND YOU CONCLUDED THAT BY USING LOGIC!!! OHH YOU ARE DONE!
Logic is unuasable

"Logic is unusable. Why? Because my emotions tell me so. [...] LOGIC IS DEAD AND UNUSABLE AND OBSOLETE"You provided no evidence for your claim, emotions do not equal fact. Logic can not be obsolete by defintion, but the logical projection can be obsolete, though that is not what the debate is regarding. "And in so called "logic", that is circular reasoning?"It's circular reasoning if you assume that your emotions equal fact, thankfully they don't.
James Harrison hit on Clevland Browns Colt McCoy

Pro has not responded to and thus agrees to the following:1. Harrison hit McCoy's helmet with his own, which is illegal.2. Harrison led the tackle with his helmet, which is illegal.3. Helmet to helmet rules are legitimate due to health concerns.4. Just because some other dirty hits weren't penalized doesn't mean this one shouldn't be. My opponent has one main argument last round; McCoy ducked just before the tackle, which is why Harrison "accidentally" hit his helmet. I'm not sure what video my opponent is looking at here. Go to full screen at 0:55 of the video. McCoy was standing up straight the entire time. He never ducked. Harrison's tackling angle was coming for his helmet from the start. The conclusion is obvious. He also says that McCoy was eligible for a big hit since he was running around outside the pocket. This is irrelevant because helmet to helmet hits are illegal for any player, eligible or not. Even attacking a 250 pound runningback's helmet is illegal. He also thinks that had a bigger quarterback like Cam Newton been hit on his helmet, Harrison wouldn't have been flagged. Again, helmet to helmet hits are illegal no matter who the players are. The NFL rules I sourced last round don't distinguish players based on their weight, and don't specify that in certain circumstances, helmet hits are ok. They're always illegal. ConclusionHarrison's hit clearly violated two NFL rules regarding use of the helmet. McCoy did not force Harrison to hit his helmet by ducking, look at the video for yourself. Conclusion - Harrison, as he's done several times before, was so over-eager in looking for a highlight real tackle that he ignored safety procedures.
James Harrison hit on Clevland Browns Colt McCoy

DO NOT WATCH VIDEO UNTIL INSTRUCTED TO AFTER FIRST PARAGRAPH To be honest I don't even think the hit was even worth a flag. The new rules protect the QB way to much. When McCoy tucked the ball in and started to run out of the pocket, he is considered a eligible player and you do whatever is neccesary to get him down. Lets play the same scenario, but instead of 6'1 216 pound McCoy, the QB is 6'5 250 pound Cam Newton. If James Harrison made the same hit on Cam Newton when he was running out of the pocket with the ball, we will not be having this discution. The NFL cannot dish out penalties and suspensions whenever they please. They have to be consistent. James Harrison, who has been the target of many fines from the NFL front office last year, is the first player to ever get a suspension for an on field situation. The NFL has it out for James Harrison and are trying to make him the poster boy for fines and suspensions. Its basically saying, hit someone to hard and you will end up like James Harrison. To prove my point please watch this clip and see for yourself. http://www.youtube.com... Colt McCoy knew the consequences when he left the pocket. he was making himself an eligible player and was hit the same way a running back or a receiver would have been hit in the open field. He ran out of the pocket, tucked the ball in as if he was going to run for the first down, and when he saw James Harrison coming, he cowardly threw the ball at the last second. If you go back to the video Con posted in round 1, then you can clearly see that James Harrison was going to hit McCoy in the chest with his shoulder, HOWEVER, Colt McCoy got scared and ducked to some how avoid being hit. I am not saying McCoy is a coward or didn't take it like a man or anything else like that. Believe me I would have probably done the same thing if I saw Harrison chasing me down, but the fact of the matter is Harrison was intended on hitting him clean, and he would have if McCoy didn't duck his head. The NFL should have taken that into consideration before sentencing Harrison with a serious fine. This fine does two things; it doesn't allow one of Pittsburgh's best defensive players to play against a very good San Francisco 49ers team and second it keeps Harrison from receiving almost $50,000 because it is a suspension without pay. James Harrison did appeal the NFL's decision yesterday, and they are still deciding if they will grant him access to play on Monday Night or not. I would like to thank my opponent for such a good debate, and I will also like to thank everyone who will take the time to read this whole debate. It doesn't matter if you are a steelers fan, a Browns fan, or if you do not even like football, the answer if it was a clean hit or not lies in the video. Watch as McCoy ducks and Harrison hits with his shoulder. Notice how it would have been clean if McCoy didn't duck. McCoy was out in the open field and was considered a live player. This his is clean and legal for those reasons. Thank you.
James Harrison hit on Clevland Browns Colt McCoy

The NFL rules ban helmet-to-helmet hits, or hits where 2 helmets hit each other with high force (1). Additionally, the NFL bans a tackler "using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent." James Harrison's hit broke both rules.If you look at 0:55 of the video (full screen helps) its blatantly obvious that Harrison ran his helmet right into McCoy's head. His helmet was also the primary hit Harrison used ot make the tackle, rather than his shoulder. These are both illegal.Pro himself would bring up that McCoy was concussed on the play and is likely out for the season. A concussion is caused by severe trauma to the head. So right there you know that Harrison illegaly blasted McCoy's helmet. My opponent doesn't really prove that the hit was legal or clean. He just says that football is a contact sport and that we should tolerate hard hits. I agree. Hard hits are great, and legal, as long as they're not in the wrong places. We see hard hits all the time in the NFL that aren't illegal. He also says that there have been other nasty hits that weren't penalized, so we shouldnt penalize this one. This isn't much of an argument; its like saying that since the police let one convicted felon walk free, we should let them all walk free. Just because some people have gotten off scotch-free with illegal hits doesn't mean the rule shouldn't be enforced. The helmet rule is also necessary. The head is the most sensitive part of the body to football hits, and jarring it too strongly causes concussions as McCoy got. I admit that the rules protecting quarterbacks are too much, but the issue here is a helme to helmet hit, which we should all agree is bad. Had Harrison hit McCoy somewhere else on his body and not used his helmet as a battering ram, the hit would have been clean. Good luck to my opponent.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.nfl.com...
James Harrison hit on Clevland Browns Colt McCoy

The hit Colt McCoy received last Thursday night was ugly. It was painful just to watch. It was possibly the hardest hit of the year thus far. The hit was so hard QB Colt McCoy said he cant even remember being hit. He received a concussion due to the play, and is unlikely to be seen on the field for the rest of the season. I Agree that the hit was hard. I agree that it is unfortunate for Colt McCoy. I agree that concussions are a serious thing today in the NFL. HOWEVER I do not agree that this hit was illegal. We can all agree that football is a contact sport. The definition of contact sport from freedictionary.com is, " A sport in which the participants necessarily come into bodily contact with one another." When one plays a contact sport such as football, a hit like this is bound to happen sooner rather then later. We have seen some pretty nasty hits that have been rule legal, and this one should be considered legal as well.
Minnesota Vikings suck

Even though I am a Packers fan, your argument is ridiculous. You are saying the Vikings Organization sucks because they kept a kicker who missed a field goal. First, the obvious. The Vikings went 11-5. That is the best in the NFC North, and 6th in the NFL. That hardly seems like a bad team to me. The Viking's organization made almost 300 million dollars in 2015. That sounds like a great, very sucessful team to me. Not to mention the Vikings made it to the playoffs. So they definitely don't suck. Now I will address your argument. First, to defend Blair Walsh, the handler put the laces on the football down the wrong way, making it harder to aim. It was also very cold, further hurting Walsh's chances. Finally, there was 10 mph wind during the game. These 3 factors will make a 27 yarder feel a lot harder. Kickers miss field goals. It happens. Only this time, it was much more important then other field goals. Now let's look at Blair Walsh. In 2015, he attempted 39 field goals, and made 34. That is quite good. Walsh is a good kicker. He, like every kicker, just missed a hard field goal. Also, saying the entire organization sucks because they kept Blair Walsh. Walsh is a good kicker, and the Vikings' Team and Organization is quite sucessful. This is why I believe the Minnesota Vikings don't suck.
Resolved: Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States.

I am very sorry for the forfeits... I have been out of town without Internet access. If you feel debate wasn't met to your criteria. I will be glad to meet another challenge on this topic. I will present my reasons same sex marriage should not be legal. 1.Our country has been built a certain way for certain reasons. Strait marriage is one of those things that we take pride in. Changing the criteria for marriage will blow everything out of proportion. Some people will argue it is their right to marry more than one person, their right to marry animals (it's happened before) and their right to marry children. Gay marriage will certainly create more rebellion. We can't lead people to believe they can choose any immoral action they want, complain about it, and let them get what they want. It's a quick path to disaster. 2.Gay marriage is more than twice as likely to end in divorce. 3.A lot of churches in America feel strongly against same sex marriage. Allowing it would run possibility of the children whose parents are strongly against same sex marriage getting biased points taught in school by a gay teacher. 4.Again, a lot of people feel gay marriage is wrong morally. They shouldn't have to fear their tax dollars going to something they don't believe in. 5.Girls who are raised apart from their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for early sexual activity (827 KB) and teenage pregnancy. Children without a mother are deprived of the emotional security and unique advice that mothers provide. As far as you saying crime rates would go down by allowing same sex marriage, I disagree because studies show that a child growing up without a mother or on the other hand a father are twice as likely, sometimes three times as likely to commit crime in the long run. 6.Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. You argue it is peoples "right" to marry who they want. This isn't true. Even for strait people. 7.Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. source http://gaymarriage.procon.org...
Should school days be shorter? Attempt #2

Well we've finally reached the end of this debate. It was good while it lasted, but all good things must come to an end. So let's recap. My point was that school days should not be shorter because it would greatly damage the students' education and the teachers' pay. I also refuted my opponent's point of beating the children until they learn, saying that that wouldn't work and would only damage the child's mental health. If the reader's would notice, I didn't refute his other point, which was force them to read the books. This is because the students already have to read the books in order to do their classwork or homework. Though, they are free to go on without it. So there was no reason to refute that. Either way, I enjoyed this debate and I look forward to reading my opponent's last thoughts. Have a nice day.
Should school days be shorter? Attempt #2

Section 1: As I have pointed out in the last round, shorter school days won't help the students. Well, Ayesha Almazroui wrote an article about their schooling situation out in Dubai. According to Dr. Mohammad Bin Ham, the students are spending way to much time in school. That they're not getting enough time to do homework, play or be with their families. The writer, Ayesha, also stated that the classes are growing and that the students barely have enough time to learn anything as it is. Shortening the school days wouldn't help them at all. According the Ayesha, it's illegal in Dubai to get private tutoring, but parents are being forced to break that law due to the lack of time the students are getting in class. Would shortening the school days really fix this problem? I don't think so. Section 2: I will use this section to point out that my opponent hasn't given me something to refute, but simply went along with the same point that I refuted in the last round. To this extent, I shall carry that same rebuttal to this round, which will then conclude my arguments for said round. I look forward to my opponent's arguments and rebuttals. http://www.thenational.ae...
The Job Guarantee Is A Good Idea.

The simpler route for JG I would argue is relevant in the context of the argument about an alternative to JG. I would say if the CI has even less chance of actually being accepted by current society that does need to be taken into consideration. CI could be perfect but {if} it has no chance of being fully implemented it is hardly going to be the best approach. There is always the possibility that future governments may attempt to under fund or water down a JG. What needs to be acknowledged though is our fundamentally different assumption about government. I don't believe the Government is fundamentally bad and out to screw and control people. The Earned Income Tax Credit believed by some to be the most successful anti-poverty Federal Government program. And neither Democratic or Republican presidents have attempted to abolish it. There is always the chance that a government may try to screw things up, there is a Indian Government rural job guarantee program that has had corruption for example. The greater point, weather it is JG or CI the government of the day could seek to dismantle either one. Yes people work together now but there is a fundamental difference between people working together in an office and changing how companies are run and managed on a huge scale. I would argue that the CI is unlikely to be a better alternative to JG {at least at this time} because it is not a widely tested approach. The United States only has an estimated 300 democratic workplaces according to the Atlantic. Co-operatives are also not always successful. Some have failed and some have found it hard to keep up with the competition because of the slow process of democratic decision making. JG is backed up by government funding and so the government can just keep allocating money to not for profits or allocating money for public sector jobs during recessions. The co-operatives that fail don't have the same capacity. So as far as alternatives go, CI can not do as good of a job at keeping people employed as a JG.
The Job Guarantee Is A Good Idea.

I would disagree that taxation is force and coercion. If it is a freedom argument I would say my metrics are, if it is not an actual dictatorship one is not doing too badly. If Amnesty International has not taken up your cause we are okay, I would say pre-income tax in America people were not freer just because of the lack of income tax. I would argue that they may have been less free. Poverty was higher and poverty can limit freedom. It limits what you can do because one can't afford it, etc. So the income tax led to more money and more social programs, etc. I would also argue that tax is the price you pay for being part of society. Membership dues. Both a Job Guarantee and Cooperative Individualism would be hard to fully implement in current society but I would argue that a JG would still be better than a CI. For one, CI requires a new eco-system. Managing people into groups, and ensuring enough groups to get the unemployment rate to 0, The JG can just extend existing systems. Expanding the existing public service for example. Expanding not for profits etc. I would also argue that the CI's are under no obligation to hire everyone like the JG. One of the benefits of the JG is that it is about ensuring everyone has a job {and that includes ex-cons etc}. This does not automatically happen under an CI. One also has the issue that the co-operative model may in itself be flawed. Workers working together may not work in practice. Whereas, the public service and not for profits are a little more proven. Not without issues of course. I would also point out that a government lead {federal, state or local} JG would have greater capacity to get important things done. The permission a CI group would need to improve a local park, build infrastructure and so on could take time or be denied. Whereas the government running things can grant themselves permission. CI's could still have a role but I don't think it is a better alternative to a JG.
The Job Guarantee Is A Good Idea.

The Job Guarantee would guarantee everyone was offered a job. The government could do this by funding the expansion of the public sector, creating the jobs to do, expanding not for profit employment etc. I currently believe this would be better than things like Job-share, natural private market job creation and the current public system of helping people get work. It might also be cheaper than some other approaches. I am arguing that this should be included in the government's response to unemployment. It is not a silver bullet but I think it should be a major part of it. Happy to be convinced otherwise.
Abortion rights are conservrative not liberal.

My position is that the commonly accepted paradigm that proabortion is liberal and antiabortion is conservative is wrong. For sake of time, we can agree the 2 political sides oppose each other on idealological reasons. To reduce the confusion, we will discuss the conservative side and assume the liberal side to be the polar opposite. If clarification is needed that's fine, but it is not necessary to duplicate the information as it would be needed to prove the liberal side. .. . The argument: Abortion rights are conservative not liberal. Are you a liberal that supports abortion? Are you conservative that is against abortion? Maybe you are not what you think you are. Do you think I'm wrong, crazy, or ignorant? Prove me wrong. Prove the anti abortion/prolife position . .. . is conservative.
That animal testing should be banned

Animal experimenters want us to believe that if they gave up their archaic habit, sick children and other disease and accident victims would drop dead in droves. But the most significant trend in modern research in recent years has been the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. Studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown time and again that animal experimenters are often wasting lives"both animal and human"and precious resources by trying to infect animals with diseases that they would never normally contract. Fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge, non-animal research methodologies promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. The following are some statements supporting animal experimentation followed by the arguments against them. "Every major medical advance is attributable to experiments on animals." This is simply not true. An article published in the esteemed Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has even evaluated this very claim and concluded that it was not supported by any evidence. Most animal experiments are not relevant to human health, they do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances and many are undertaken simply of out curiosity and do not even pretend to hold promise for curing illnesses. The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances. Therefore as my evidence says animal testing does no good for animals or people. It sometimes out of curiosity by the scientist to test something on an animal for fun, with most likely the result of hurting an animal. This may be clich" but, "animals are people too"!