BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Companies should have the power to restrict gun sales to people based on age.

I first would like to reiterate that this is not a second amendment issue, but instead a legality and morality issue associated with companies setting arbitrary age limits on the purchase of firearms I have decided to address the legally issue first in this debate. With that, I will call the case into question: a 20 year old male who attempted to purchase a firearm from Walmart and/or Dick's Sporting Goods, both chain retaliation who have recently enacted policies raising the sale age of firearms to 21 and older (. http://www.oregonlive.com...). The man, named Tyler Watson, is a victim of "discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. " This a law in Oregon that any resident "accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges" equally amongst "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age. " Take note to the word age and facilities. Essentially stores who offer services (facilities) to a consumer must grant all services of that store to anyone of all ages defined by the state. The law: (. https://www.oregonlaws.org...) The explanation: (. https://reason.com...) Minimum age to by a gun in Oregon:(. http://lawcenter.giffords.org...) In terms of the law, Watson is clearly in the right. Oregon law allows the sale of a firearm to an individual of 18 years of age, but this policy is raising the age of purchase to 21, clearly violating the law. The types of anti-discriminatory laws not only exist in Oregon, but also exist in about one third of the nation's states. Companies can not make these arbitrary age limits, at the very least within these states. I look forward to my opponent's data as well as the next round, where I plan to address morality behind why these age policies are unnecessary and unjust.
Most intimidating player in the NFL, current

You opened by proposing that Aaron Rodgers is the most intimidating player in the NFL. You're only criteria to define intimidation was exceptional performance. In my first argument, I contradicted that criteria with five elements of intimidation in the NFL. In my second argument, I provided an unbiased definition of intimidation that aligned closely with my criteria. By your own admission, Aaron Rodgers does not meet the emotional dimension of intimidation. He does not cow, bulldoze, bully, browbeat, or induce fear. To disprove your argument, I named a player, James Harrison, that does exhibit all five intimidation criteria. Harrison is more physically intimidating. Harrison ignores rules and fines to inflict damage. He says intimidating and defiant quotes to the media. He ignores direction and penalties from the NFL commissioner. James Harrison also performs at exceptional levels on the football field. Just this weekend, he sacked Bengals QB Andy Dalton three times to lead the Steelers to a 35-7 victory. James Harrison is more intimidating than Aaron Rodgers. Therefore your assertion, that Rodgers is the most intimidating player in the NFL, is clearly false.
Most intimidating player in the NFL, current

I mentioned FIVE criteria, not one or two. Aaron Rodgers meets three of these criteria. However, criteria 1 and 5 are key to intimidation. Intimidate: to make timid or fearful. Frighten. To compel or deter by or as if by threats. Synonyms. Cow. Bulldoze. Bully. Browbeat. Intimidate implies inducing fear or a sense of inferiority into another. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Yet you say Aaron Rodgers does NONE of these things. "He isn't intimidating to look at." "He doesn't talk a lot of crap to intimidate you." "(He) kept his head high and his mouth shut." "He has kept his focus on his job, his team and his integrity." "Every week, I wait for him to impode... and it never happens." Aaron Rodgers is the model spokesman for the NFL. He appears in commercials. Your alleged "Most Intimidating" player says the following: AR (whining): You guys are doing my move. Girl: The Discount Double Check move? AR: That's my touchdown dance. Girl: So you're a dancer? AR: NO! I'm a quarterback. Guy: Oh! A quarterback. And I'm a robot! http://www.youtube.com... Teams respect Aaron Rodger's skills. He's incredible. But no one is intimidated by or afraid of the man. In fact every game plan against him tries to go AT Aaron Rodgers and knock him down. Every game plan runs AWAY from James Harrison. He's crazy, reckless, and mean. "Roger Goodell, who's a crook and a puppet, said I was the dirtiest player in the league. If that man was on fire and I had to piss to put him out, I wouldn't do it ... I hate him and will never respect him." - James Harrison on Commissioner Roger Goodell. "My rep is James Harrison, mean son of a bitch who loves hitting the hell out of people." http://www.mensjournal.com... Rodgers is well respected. James Harrison intimidates in every sense of the word. http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com...
Most intimidating player in the NFL, current

You mention that you need to be playing at an elite level to be considered intimidating. No one, and I repeat no one, is playing better football in the NFL than Aaron Rodgers. He's demolishing teams ruthlessly and it almost doesn't seem fair. You have tight coverage? I'll throw back shoulder. Give em a cushion? Comeback route You blitz? He'll find the hot read You make any type of mistake, and Aaron Rodgers is going to make you pay. But what makes him most intimidating is the fact that he isn't making mistakes. He's completing 71.8% of his passes, which is mind boggling. That puts him on pace to break the all-time record. But not only that, in 6 of the 11 games, Rodgers has completed 73% of his passes or more, including two games of 80% completion. Then you have the fact that he's thrown 4 interceptions. Yes, 4. If you add the last 7 games of last year to this season (18 total games), Rodgers has thrown 5386 yards for 49 touchdowns to 5 interceptions. That's an average of 300 yards a game and over 2 touchdowns. As a defense, how do you stop that? You can't. No matter what you do, you can't stop him. If you make any kind of mistake, he's capitalizing. You leave the smallest of windows and he'll squeeze a pass in there. If you blitz, he knows where to go with the ball to make you pay. You drop back in coverage and he'll dink and donk passes all the way down the field. To me, that's far more intimidating than a brute of a player. While Harrison is physically intimidating, you CAN get away from him. Defense can't run scared away from Aaron Rodgers. No matter what you do, he'll win.
Most intimidating player in the NFL, current

You should have stuck with defensive players. An intimidator should meet the following: First, he must be physically imposing. The NFL is a sport for huge men asserting dominance: physically, mentally and emotionally. Second, he must play at an elite level. A recent Defensive Player of the Year award would be sufficient evidence. Third, he must force teams to game plan specifically against him. Fourth, the player must make big plays that stand out, even among the best of his peers. And fifth, he has to have an element of crazy to get inside the heads of his opponents. In 2010, James Harrison was slapped with four fines for illegal hits totalling $125,000. * $5,000 - A hit on Titans' quarterback Vince Young. * $75,000 - A brutal helmet-to-helmet hit of Browns' wideout Mohamed Massaquoi. * $20,000 - for a hit on Saints' quarterback Drew Brees * $25,000 - a hit on Bills' quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick James Harrison continued taking shots, verbally and physically in 2011. He damaged his eye and sat out four weeks from a helmet to helmet hit. This man defies NFL rules, punishments, and the vulnerability of his own body. Off-season back surgery slowed him earlier in the year so the stats aren't amazing this season. However, right now, he's fresh, healthy, and was devastatingly effective against the Steelers' rival, the Ravens. Upon his return, he terrorized Baltimore with 3 sacks, a forced fumble, and five tackles. James Harrison, like the Terminator, came back.
Most intimidating player in the NFL, current

When I first saw this topic, my mind went to defensive players. I won't name names for my opponent to use, but there are many to choose from. But then like peeling an onion, I started digging deeper and came up with my choice. He isn't intimidating to look at. He's in good shape, but he's like most good athletes, in good shape but not a physical specimen. He doesn't talk a lot of crap to intimidate you. He brings his lunch pail to practice and to the game and plays. He walks the walk and lets that speak for him. He's been embroiled in controversy and kept his head high and his mouth shut. He took the high road when he could have torched his antagonist. Even well after the fact, he has kept his focus on his job, his team and his integrity. Last year, his team was depleted by injuries and he kept putting his team on his back, winning games and lead by example. He is the one player in the NFL I'm most afraid of Dallas facing. Every week, I wait for him to implode. Blow a game, get busted at a topless bar, shoot himself or just generally embarrass himself, his team or the NFL. And it never happens. Who is this intimidating player? Aaron Rodgers
Morality is objective

I do not believe that morality is objective because it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis; there is, as far I can tell, no way to determine whether morality is objective. Something that is objectively true should normally be demonstrable, and demonstrating that a certain action is good/bad is, as far I can tell, not doable. I'm going to stop here because going any further increases the risk of erecting a strawman, which I don't want to do.
Morality is objective

Rules: - BoP is on Pro to demonstrate that morality is objective, either by demonstrating the existence of an objective standard or by any other method he may see fit. - First round is for acceptance and the rest is up to the debaters, but NO NEW ARGUMENTS in the last round. - Let's try to avoid semantics, although this may be quite hard in this debate. - Let's be civil. - Have fun (that's an order) Definitions: - Objective morality: The claim that morals are true independent on whether anyone agrees with them or not (either situational or absolute, I don't mind). - Morality: How we categorize whether certain actions are good or bad. I hope for a stimulating debate!
Air-powered Lego cars are the ideal vehicle.

A LEGO car is indeed not a box of cookies, but you would have no idea if your bricks have been stolen until it is too late. Master LEGO builders are more than capable of removing bricks, and even assuming you could outrun them in your car (which is proven false as humans can run at 12 mph for short distances), they could still throw hammers at your car. This may seem far-fetched but many kids are skilled in the art of hammer throwing due to watching the Hammer Brothers in Super Mario. LEGO cars offer no protection from this tomfoolery as the top is open. To the second rebuttal, my opponent asserts that having LEGO cars explode everywhere would be a good thin. Unfortunately, an exploding car you are driving would impale you as well as your enemy, making it utterly useless for that purpose unless you are driving next to Miley Cryus. My opponent makes several arguments about other vehicles. People do indeed get tired, and most people do hate cyclists, but if you live in a yuppie town like Seattle there shouldn't be a problem. Further, his main complaint about horses is that they poop, but this is no worse than what your LEGO vehicle will do if it hits s bump - it'll be sh*tting bricks all the way. My opponent disregards cheetah transportation entirely, saying you might slip off of your cheetah while riding it. This is false, however, as you would be taping yourself to it, ensuring you won't fall off. This is the only real issue he raises, proving cheetahs are the ideal vehicle.
Air-powered Lego cars are the ideal vehicle.

"several" "drawbacks"Con may be surprised to find out that this car isn't a box of cookies, so you really have nothing to worry about. This isn't so much a box of cookies, but a box of cookies doing a whopping 12 mph and its contents being quite hard to steal. Have you ever tried separating two Lego bricks? It's that, but on a monumental scale. So, the air-powered Lego car is much harder to steal from. They would know how to fix it, as they managed to build one and knew how to build one so repairing the convertible should be easy for them. Also, it means it's a car for only non-doofuses. College punks could try to grab a hammer and destroy your vehicle, but there would be one massive drawback:i) It would be too fast for them. 12MPH BABY OHHHYEAHThe "second" "flaw" con points out isn't a flaw, it's a bonus! We all have people we don't like, and this is just another opportunity to accidentally impale them. You know what they say:"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" - Unknown, probably me thoughAs long as the bozos nearby have car insurance and all that rubbish, you should be fine.Con then points out some vehicles that actually aren't more ideal than the air-powered Lego car:A person - They get tired, but we never ever run out of air.A person on a bicycle - As well as getting tired, everyone who isn't a cyclist really hates cyclists so you'd probably get killed by a harpoon to the head before you even went from 0 to 6.A Horse - They get tired and they continuously poo on the road and they're unbelievably slow [3] on the road as on the road they walk, plus the poo gets in the way of normal people like me who would never even consider this ridiculous pooey mode of transportation.A Cheetah - Not only do they poo and fart and all that disgusting stuff, but it would actually be impossible to ride a cheetah. Seeing as you and the cheetah are seriously unmatched, your 12-15mph [1] (at best)and the cheetah's 70mph [2] means that you'd just slip off the cheetah and the cheetah would run away. Even taped-on rear-view mirrors and a blinker don't solve this problemo!Thank you.Sources[1] http://uk.ask.com...[2] http://www.livescience.com...[3] http://answers.yahoo.com...
Air-powered Lego cars are the ideal vehicle.

My opponent contends that air-powered LEGO cars are the ideal vehicle. However, this vehicle has several drawbacks which mean it cannot be the ideal vehicle.First and foremost, the biggest drawback of the vehicle is that people can steal parts from it or prank. This might not seem like a big deal to some, but have you ever bought a box of cookies and had a sneaking suspicion your brother is stealing them and not telling anyone? Imagine that, but with a whole car. Some punk with his own LEGO car might walk up and say 'you know what, I like that brick, I think I'll take it'. Now imagine a whole city of punks stealing your car bit-by-bit... not to mention the obvious easy vandalism that could be done by college kids, who could just grab a hammer and smash your car to bits. One might say, "well I can just rebuild my LEGO car", but alas that is not the case. It took the builders of the first LEGO car 18 months just to build it,[1] and we all know they didn't make an instruction manual, meaning that you'll have no idea what bricks you need to use to fix it.The second flaw is the obvious risk of the car breaking. LEGO bricks, especially knock-off brands like MEGA-BLOKS and Best-lock, are notorious for breaking if dropped or hit. A single impact could cause a catastrophic explosion, which the creators of the car acknowledge by noting that it would be a "giant LEGO explosion impaling passers-by".[1] This is even more bad when you realize LEGO bricks are a pain to pick up, a pain to step on, and a pain if you roll over them in your own LEGO car, causing you own car to explode. We'd have an endless cycle of exploding LEGO cars, resulting in cities littered with LEGO bricks and impaled pedestrians, and all that would come out of it is LEGO becoming the biggest corporation in the world.Finally, the engine itself is flawed. It only allows you to travel 12 mph, only about half as fast as the average person can run over distance,[2] about as fast as you can ride a bicycle[3] and about half as fast as a horse can run.[4] This is a big problem because neither you nor a horse have the risk of spontaneously exploding. The best way to travel, however, would by cheetah to your back as cheetahs can travel over 70 mph - about as fast as a car on an interstate.[5] You can easily accomplish this by taping rear-view mirrors and a blinker to your cheetah, and then taping it to your back, which would make it perfectly street legal for you to use as your primary means of transportation.References:1. http://www.bbc.co.uk...2. http://www.ask.com...3. https://en.wikipedia.org...4. https://www.google.com...5. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Air-powered Lego cars are the ideal vehicle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...Recently, some troublesome teenage punks have built an air-powered car built out of Lego.The vehicle is terrifically handy because whilst you're speeding at a whopping 12mph, you can drive past a child and attach their lego things onto your vehicle, and that unbelievably fast 12mph top speed means that the child will never be able to catch up with you to get it back.In fact, in my opinion they're so good that I've got one myself already! http://www.debate.org...Pretty hip, eh?This vehicle is also handy because if any other troublesome teens try to nick a piece or two (that's unlikely), you can just carry a spare bucket of parts so you never have to break down. Unless you run out of air, in which case you'll break down too.Before I acquired one of these marvellous automobiles, day-to-day conversations went very much like this:Bully: [to me] Hey, granddad! Nice cement mixerRest of punks: Ha! Ha! But now, they turn out more like this:Former bully: [to me] Woah, cool car, man!Other hip comrads: Woah, groovy! It should be noted that the latter happened quite a number of decades ago, that's how "hipster" I am. This unique set of wheels is also ideal because of its alternative fuel source. Because of this, you can just spurt a trump into the engine and you'll have enough fuel for ages! Power of gas exhaustion may vary. Terms and conditions apply. Patent pending. For additional details, visit our website. Item only available while stocks last. Said type of vehicle may or may not be available to purchase in your area. All ideas, materials, logos, likenesses and other properties are registered trademarks of us. Thank you.
There is no logical paradox or contradiction in the Christian conception of God.

There are several logical paradoxes in the concept of the Christian God. 1) Problem of evil. There is evil in the world. If God is all powerful, then God could defeat evil. If God is all good, then God would want to defeat evil. If God is all powerful and all good, then there is no evil. However, since there is evil we have a contradiction. Either God cannot be all powerful or cannot be all good. 2) Argument from unbelief. There is unbelief in the world. If God is all powerful, then God could prove his existence. If God wants us to believe, then we should believe. If the punishment for unbelief is great and God doesn't want us punished, then we should believe. There should be no reasonable unbelief in a world with an all powerful God who wants us to believe. There is unbelief in the world. God either cannot prove he exists or wants us to go to hell for not believing. 3) Omnipotence paradox. God is all powerful. An all-powerful being can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. Such a rock could not be lifted by an all-powerful being. ------ Ultimately, there are apologetics to apply to these arguments perhaps God grants us free will and therefore evil exists. However some things such as natural disasters are not the product of free will. Perhaps God is testing our faith by trying to trick us with dinosaur bones or good reasons to accept the Bible is false, why bother if he knows whether we will succeed or not. Perhaps God isn't really all powerful enough to contract himself. However, these are simply ways of trying to avoid the arguments, defuse them, or suppose a different concept of God. That may placate the believer who struggles with them but it certainly doesn't suggest they don't exist. They clearly do exist even if twisted logic can be used to try to rip them away from the mind. And these are just the philosophical arguments, there are also many other Biblical arguments which don't make any reasonable sense. The central story of the Bible is that God creates perfection and God's perfection screw it up (because clearly they weren't perfect) because some talking serpent has people eat from a magic tree. They get kicked out of perfection to protect God's other magic tree, then go off and live, human populations flourish until God kills them all with a flood except for Noah's family. Then God finally gets around to taking human form in order to make a blood sacrifice of Himself to Himself in order to give Himself permission to forgive His creation for eating His tree. So he goes through a long story and finally winds up getting killed by the Jews nailed to a cross saying "Myself, Myself, Why have I forsaken Myself." There are plenty of logical paradoxes and contradictions in the Christian conception of God. Even if you suppose you have fantastic apologetics for anything I offer, you're still just apologizing for the paradoxes and contradictions clearly evident.
There is no logical paradox or contradiction in the Christian conception of God.

Thank you in advance to anyone who accepts this debate. Philosophers, theologians, scientists and many others have debated the topic of the christian conception of God and apparent logical contradictions contain therein for more than a millenium. My proposition in this debate is that there is no apparent paradox or contradiction in the christian conception of God that cannot be logically resolved in such a way that allows for His existence. I am not attempting to prove undeniably that God as understood by Christianity DOES exist just that He logically CAN.
Avengers are better than X-Men

Ah, but is wise to know the opposing army. Their strengths, weakness, tendencies and so on. Do you think America, or any other nation, would go to war not knowing about the enemy just because the army got board of such lectures? They most certainly would not. Meanwhile, I am not putting down the avengers in any way. They are both interesting. And seeing as their are at least seven x-men movies now and around three more coming out in the next couple years, I would say that they are good enough to stand against the few movies your side has. Fyi, I know the Avengers side very well.
Avengers are better than X-Men

You failed to even mention half f X-men which have a larger and more superior arsenal unless the Avenger call upon all their friends from Marvel. The x-men also have the following: Nightcrawler(teleportation) Iceman(all things ice) Colossus (strength) Cyclops (Lasers) Jean Grey (Almost limitless) Leech (drain power) Kitty Pryde (walk through walls) Angel (Flying) Gambit (Kinetic energy) And for the ones you mentioned: Wolverine (Healing and claws) Mystique ( Disguise) Professor x (Mind control) Storm (Weather) Warpath and Blink (No idea) With that statement, make your argument.