BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Adrian Peterson had a better comeback year than Peyton Manning

(I'm a 49ers fan) I believe that Adrian Peterson and Peyton Manning both had phenomenal years this previous season, and the fact that they were both stellar after season ending injuries is even more impressive. I do believe however that Adrian Peterson's comeback was more impressive for several reasons. First, Adrian Peterson was always known as a very physical running back. Second, he is the workhorse and arguably one of the only elite players on the Vikings now. Third, the injury he received is one that has ended countless athletes careers, and made others drop in levels of competitiveness both physically and mentally. What is an ACL? "The ligament holds the femur and tibia together, and keeps the knee stable during deceleration and changes in direction. The ACL"s susceptibility to injury is a result of the upper body"s weight bearing down on the joint. Surgery is required when there is insufficient blood flow to repair the tissue. Without an ACL, athletes simply crumple to the ground. " . http://theruination.net... As shown here, the ACL is vital to a runningback's success. Without it, or without proper healing of the ligament, an athlete is unable to accelerate, turn quickly, and basically all agility is lost. After sustaining a serious ACL tear, athletes generally have to start learning how to walk again. This is an injury that is difficult to come back from for any player, but especially a player who's main function is to run the ball, and basically take more abuse on the leg. AP is an athlete who takes abuse far more than other running backs for several reasons. He is a physical type running back; he mows people down, and although he does have fantastic agility, is also not afraid to make contact. He is also arguably one of the Vikings only elite player. Him, Jared Allen, Percy Harvin, Christian Ponder and Kalil (the draft pick), were perhaps the most important players for the vikings. While Allen and Harvin did mediocre, Ponder showed streaks of success and failure between weeks, and wasn't consistent enough to put a team on his shoulders. This meant that all the pressure for the vikings was on Adrian Peterson's shoulders. The fact that the Vikings were playoff contenders with a minimal number of elite players and a lackluster coach, shows that the majority of the wins were because of Adrian Peterson. In addition, his statistics from that season are impressive for any player in that he was a mere 9 yards away from a single season rushing yards record (that has been held since 1984- Eric Dickerson). I believe that first, AP's season was more impressive in that Eric Dickerson had 379 Attempts compared to AP's 348 rushing attempts. This means that Adrian Peterson carried a phenomenal 6.0 ypc average (which is far beyond HOF numbers), and would be impressive at any age and any year, but is exceptionally surprising because of the type of injury Adrian Peterson had to come back from. I will end this round here, and I await CONs rebuttal. At the last round, I will respond to most/all of his facts and opinions regarding Peyton Manning and AP.
Death Penilty in the US.

"Your second argument: You stated that a convicted criminal would much rather spend his/her life in prison rather than be put to death. This is untrue and is a personal view you might have, not representative of entire prison populations. We obviously can't interview every prisoner in the U. S. for this debate so instead I will demonstrate why one might prefer death. " No I have stated the opposite (or i ment to and I worded it in the wrong order, so what I believe is people would rather be put to death quickly than to suffer in prison. it may be a personal belief, but with the arguements you state later (except taxes), wouldn't you think they would prefer a quick death instead of cancer, and rape (which would be extremely just in rape cases), and torturous gaurds? My opponent probably missed what I was trying to say though, it may be in my religion, but I understand many do have other religion or none at al, and in any case some kind of punishment should be, just not death. ~~~~Question for my opponent~~~~~ Are you saying that we shouldn't keep the criminals in prison, that we should just 'put them down' as they say about animals? Yes the prisons are misserable. .. .and so are the families of the victim, so why shouldn;t [s]he be misserable? "You are correct in that innocent people die each year, however that is a flaw in the U. S. court system not the use of the death penalty itself. Therefore it will be disregarded. (Different debate. )" It is a flaw in the justice sytem, I never said differently, my point is it is a flaw, that leads to the gavernment killing innocent people. "What happened to separation of church and state? ! The ideas pertaining to death with religion are all personal values that shouldn't be considered in discussing the PRACTICALITY and use of the death penalty. The only exception is the pain factor for the comfort of the prisoner, which is a moral problem. Whether killing is right or wrong, the death penalty remains in place because of it's usefulness. The United States is notorious for overcrowded prisons. Overcrowding is another one of the unsanitary conditions prisoners have to live in; sometimes almost torturous. Torture or a quick death? " Gay marriege (no this is not off topic), is only legal in the state of California, why is that? It is because people say that it brings unholy things to the religios word. If religion and state were completely seperated, gay marriage would be legal in all states, nobody would use their religion to say that it is a bad thing. Unsanity, why should the prisoners that do these crimes have roomy sanitary rooms, they murdered innocent people. I believe each state should make two more prison's, just for those that do those crimes, and stick them all together. I agree torture or a quick death? "Oh and one last reminder: it is YOUR money as a taxpayer that is being used to keep the "murderers/rapists" alive and well and ready to become a danger again. " I am willing to pay my tax money to keep them alive in the prison, but with a life sentence without chance of parrol, I don't think he's coming back any time soon.
Death Penilty in the US.

Your second argument: You stated that a convicted criminal would much rather spend his/her life in prison rather than be put to death. This is untrue and is a personal view you might have, not representative of entire prison populations. We obviously can't interview every prisoner in the U.S. for this debate so instead I will demonstrate why one might prefer death. Consider This: Prison conditions in the United States can be bad enough that one might prefer death rather to live in a miserable place. Wil S. Hylton of Harper's Magazine stated that, "somewhere between 20 and 40% of American prisoners are, at this very moment, infected with hepatitis C." Hepatitis C is a disease affecting the liver, that can often lead to cancer and has no cure. Prison abuses concerning inmate rape and abusive guards are just as rampant. By eliminating the death penalty you deny a quick and easy death to those suffering in prisons because their needs aren't adequately met. Also consider the elderly who may need assistance and are prone to other diseases; I doubt prisons function as assisted living homes in addition to holding inmates. The Hepatitis C statistic only scratches the surface with medical issues. I am sure that many prisoners, perhaps even more than those wrongly convicted, suffer in pain on a daily basis. For these people, death might be a better option. Your Third Argument: You are correct in that innocent people die each year, however that is a flaw in the U.S. court system not the use of the death penalty itself. Therefore it will be disregarded. (Different debate.) Religion: What happened to separation of church and state?! The ideas pertaining to death with religion are all personal values that shouldn't be considered in discussing the PRACTICALITY and use of the death penalty. The only exception is the pain factor for the comfort of the prisoner, which is a moral problem. Whether killing is right or wrong, the death penalty remains in place because of it's usefulness. The United States is notorious for overcrowded prisons. Overcrowding is another one of the unsanitary conditions prisoners have to live in; sometimes almost torturous. Torture or a quick death? Oh and one last reminder: it is YOUR money as a taxpayer that is being used to keep the "murderers/rapists" alive and well and ready to become a danger again.
Death Penilty in the US.

I would like to say in my first arguement that the death penilty, can be avioded, and should be. First arguement, my religion's role: God does not want man to punish one another, thus the death penelty is unjust, in that case. After the person in question dies, [s]he is at the mercy of God. (personal example) If my 6 year old brothe hits my 3 year old brother, if I yell, or pull him away, Xera and/or Lorca will not punish him, because he was already punished, by someone less powerful. second: Religion aside, ignoring there is such a thing who would rather live however long [s]he would ive normally in a cage, never allowed to leave VS being put to death quickly (not promissing painlessly, since i have heard that even with lethal injection the guy was screaming in pain). Since that is a small number of people life in prison without chance of parol is a better punishment for murders/rapists. Third: Not everyone on death row is guilty, "For every 7 executions–486 since 1976–1 other prisoner on death row has been found innocent. And there's concern even more mistaken convictions will follow." link: http://members.tripod.com... Thus by using the death penilty even more innocent people could be killed. Even on the issue of the [non]guilty person who was put to death, what about their families? In the case of the non guilty persons case, the government had killed an innocent person, and traumatized the family. in the case of a guilty person, I relieze it would be void, because the peron who commited the crime, did not think of the family of his/her victim, or his/her own family. In any case there IS a chance that they got the wrong person unless it was a rape case where his victim identified him, and he admitted it. Or even in a murder, if there was a witness, or attemted murder where the victim played dead, (I have seen a case like that). So there are alternitives. That do not equate into double murder, if the person is guilty, triple if they get the wrong guy first.
Death Penilty in the US.

In a nutshell, my opponent is trying to say that rapists deserve an easy way out, and they do not deserve to suffer. The tax dollar statement meant exactly what I said; I have no problem with it. I am not saying everyone feels the same way, but the way you emphasizes on the word you're, meaning that you were talking to me specifically. By making this claim my opponent has volunteered to prove that all other nations and all other judicial systems are proof against error. In other words, he must now prove that no other nation, besides the US, cans wrongly convict a person of a crime. Since some of the other nations that allow the death penalty include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestinian Authority, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, it is safe to assume that errors have been made by other nations. Since he can not prove errors do not happen, my contention stands. If other nations are capable of making the same errors, then the same argument applies- innocent people are convicted and may be put to death, making the death penalty immoral. http://en.wikipedia.org... I have seen no websites saying that people would not rather be dead than miserable. The death penalty (LOL, not penilty LOL) costs more money than keeping the people alive. ~~~~Question for my opponent~~~~ Have you heard of the case where the guy Ted Bundy I believe, killed several people, and robbed banks, then asked a woman which state enforces the death penalty the strongest, she replied Florida, so he went there did the same thing, and pleaded guilty? That is proof that some people would rather be put to death than anything else. Also here is the definition of murder: http://www.merriam-webster.com... it looks like the definition would be "to kill" by looking at the top part, but it is "Unlawful killing; especially by malice or force" Why unlawful? Why should it be lawful to kill? If a man rapes your wife, should you be allowed to shoot him? If yes, won't the law go after you as well, if you were not on your property at the time? If no, then you have conceded that I am right, and the death penalty is an unjust punishment. Here is the definition of death: http://www.medterms.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... The definition of penalty: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.investorwords.com... Thus death penalty: http://www.answers.com... It makes since, but why if it is wrong for one person to kill, is it right for another, hence executioner: http://www.google.com...:*:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GFRC&defl=en&q=define:executioner&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title Since one is not allowed to kill, then why should another? That is the question you should ask yourselves, as voters. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Death Penilty in the US.

I am sorry, we may have had some misunderstandings. To answer your question, no, I was simply illustrating the benefits of the death penalty system we have in place that might apply to suffering prisoners, not suggesting that we kill people just because we can. Going back to your first argument in Round 2; I found it unclear. In Round 1 you stated that only a very small amount of prisoners suffer enough to want death over life in prison. My Round 1 argument, showed that this is not always true. After demonstrating that there are large amounts of suffering prisoners, I stand by my statement that a lot might prefer death over life in prison. The flaw in the judicial system may, "lead" to the death penalty, but right now we are discussing whether the death penalty is useful, practical and works or whether it is a wrong practice. Concerning gay marriage as proof that church and state are intertwined, I have one major problem. People have used religion as an opposition, but are you using this fact to suggest that it is alright for people combine church and state? Just because some ignorant people have tried to justify politics with religion, it doesn't make it right. Should we cut people's hands off for stealing because a religion states so? Or how about human sacrifices purely to gain the forgiveness of God(s) [just addressing all religions here]? In the U.S., a melting pot of cultures and religions, I don't think that would work out well. The moral values taken from religions are acceptable aspects of the argument, but once again, religion itself should not be considered when taking a more logical, practical outlook on this issue. You have gone on to say, quite enthusiastically if I'm not mistaken, that you are fine with paying to keep these convicts alive in knowingly unsanitary conditions. You have said they "deserve" the conditions. They deserve debilitating disease? They deserve traumatic experiences? Their sentence just said "jail time," not rape and disease. Building more prisons requires one thing: money. Does everyone want to pay more money for more prisons? You know, there is limited room in our country. I wouldn't particularly like to see prisons in our neighborhoods near schools nor would I like to be driving through a remote place to see a hellish zoo-like complex of thousands of murders being crammed together. (Think slave boats.) Because that is torture, and paying to keep these people (**People on death row for example**) alive and miserable is sickening. Or was your multi-prison more resort/spa quality? Because for some reason, I don't think the public would want to pay for one of those either. Because of these flaws, we should keep the system in place. It's usually unseen benefits outweigh the cons.
privatizing social security with guaranteed minimum is better than currently

privatizing social security with guaranteed benefits is better than the current system in this system only relatively safe investments allowed by the government would be allowed. this is better than the current system because at investment returns, people would receive a much larger income in retirement. the downside, if markets fail, would be a problem whether or not we allow people to invest privately. even in our current system, if the economy tanked, the government will still be on the hook for a certain amount of money. an added benefit would be that the government can no longer borrow against social security so our expenditures would have to be made more true, by raising taxes or keeping spending in line, not by masking the problem by borrowing against people's retirement money.
The Democratc party is the party of racism

In 1964 one of the greatest pieces of legislation passed the United States congress. This Act has come to be known as the Civil Rights Act. The question I have posed which political party has historically and even currently is racist. Whether explicit or implicit it is my personal belief that the Democratic party is the party of racism. Through exploring the history of each party I hope to illuminate which party has actually put racist policies in place. For this I will support that the Republican is not racist and I will go a step further adding that the party has never implemented a policy that was racist. Starting with the founders of both parties I will move through history addressing every major bill on the topic of slavery and rights by each party. Ending with current events. To start there are questions that need to be addressed to prove that the democrats is not the party of racism. What if any are policies the republicans have passed that are racist? Who switched form the Democrats to Republicans making the party racist? Which party historically owned slaves? Which party passed more civil rights policies? Going into more current times was stop and frisk founded in racism? Through this debate I hope to come to an agreement where we ay be able to have insights into how we can address racism in the future. It is not my intent to say racism currently does not exist. Also I am not here to say one party is better then another based on the history of each party. I will give the advantage to the one who chooses to debate me by not starting the debate until the second round. I am using this only to introduce one to the topic and the questions that need to be answered to win the debate. Good luck and my the best rhetoric win.
The Democratc party is the party of racism

No, In this last argument I will show that the Democratic party has continued it prejudice even into modern day. I have already established the party has been historically racist. Since the early 1930's the policies of explicit racism through segregation to implicit racism. In the most basic way the democratic party has created a urban plantation through welfare programs. The party has created place where generation after generation black individuals are stuck in a corrupting system. The policies has destroyed the black family. Which hurts ones likelihood to bring themselves out of poverty. Being stuck in this "progressive" cycle has promoted crime. It has degraded the black culture to one seen through rap music. To be a popular rapper you half to have grown up in a very urban violent environment. The best example of this is Drake. Drake was born in Toronto Canada but to become popular he has had to take on this persona that he is from a urban American environment. Since my opponent has not given a argument I will end early. Thank you for the debate.
The Democratc party is the party of racism

I am generalizing here. However, I am say in general Democrats and the democratic party are, and have been the party that implemented racist policies. I will start with the basics. Comparing the two founders of the parties Andrew Jackson was a slave owner, while Abraham Lincoln was the man who brought an end to slavery. It is reactively cut and dry to see which one was racist. Moving on to the civil war. At the time of the civil war and since there was not one republican that owned a slave. While the Democratic party was largely based in the south. Now some might say that was a long time ago thing have changed. For a large part they have. But when it come to slavery and racism they have not. The biggest argument for the republican party being racist is the myth of the big switch. This is thought to have happened around the civil rights era in the 1960's. The flaw in it is it did not happen. In the 1960's the republican were the one who for a large part passed the civil rights act. It was the democrats that filibustered it in congress and voted against it. The only person that switched was Strom Thurmond. During this time period only one in hundreds of thousands of racist dixiecrats switched parties. It was not until the 1980's until southerners started to vote republican. It has to be noted at this time racism in the south was on the decline. There is a correlation between this, that as racism in the south fell more and more southerners started to vote republican. I have not mentioned many other examples of the blatant racism of the democratic party but these are the key facts. Now that it has been established that the big switch is a myth. It has to be said that the Ku Klux Klan developed out of the democratic south. As racism was on the fall Woodrow Wilson revitalized it by showing a Klan movie in the white house. To this day that was the first movie ever screened in the white house. In the next round I will show modern examples of racism that have developed.
The Democratc party is the party of racism

I wish good luck to my opponent throughout the debate. I will be refuting the title of the debate: "The Democratic party is the party of racism." You may have been wishing for a longer argument, but its really not that complicated. This is all I have to say: I am a republican and I am not racist, yet everyone says that the Republican party are racists, or the democratic party is the party of racism. You need to specify to who you are talking to. ALL the democrats or a specific person? because i'm sure there are democrats that aren't racists. Before we move on I would like to know who your talking about when you say "democrats," one person or all of them?
Too much of the same food is bad

I respectfully disagree. Cats are the sole cause of global warming. We all agree that the Ku Klux Klan is evil, and without blacks and Jews, there would be no Klan; therefore the best way destroy them would be annihilate those people. The French caused 9-11. The date, not the tragedy. If you look at the average German nut hair follicle and compare it to gay rights, you can clearly see that the universe is negative one inch in Canada.
Too much of the same food is bad

I don't think that always too much of one food is bad. Especially if it's healthy. Too much lettuce will not hurt you (of course, our definition of "too much" is subjective, but there is a threshold at some point.) as long as you fit others things into your diet to allow for other nutrients and needed minerals, vitamins, etc, and fit within your caloric and fat/sugar/carb/etc limits.