BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THW make Ian Johnson the third string RB!

There are 32 teams in the NFL. Odds are at least one would be willing to trade something that potentially improves the Vikings passing game (Perhaps a receiver?) for a solid back like Chester Taylor. You contradict yourself by saying the Vikings are OK in all areas and have a very poor passing game. Odds are also high that some team with an overabundance of reception capabilities could benefit from a back both strong in short yardage and extremely fast. Depth is useful. But it can't be looked into too much when one still has room to improve in breadth instead, where one will get the benefit all of the time instead of some of the time.
THW make Ian Johnson the third string RB!

In response to my opponents arguments: 1. For the Minnesota Vikings to trade or even get rid of Chester Taylor would be suicidal for there season. I am a huge Ian Johnson fan but even I have to admit Ian had played against a far weaker schedule than most backs in the NCAA. To get rid of a good combination like Adrian and Chester in hopes that Ian will show up and play tremendously. Again my opponents third argument is betting on Ian doing great. The vikings have a very poor passing game, the only way for there season to have a chance of success is to have a deep running back area. Now I will agree with my opponent that the Vikings could get other positions filled accept they are ok in all areas. Not great, but ok. So keeping all three at least until the preseason is over would be beneficial. Also if Ian was to go to another team he might not have the ability to highlight his tremendous skill at short runs and make a team do worse off.
THW make Ian Johnson the third string RB!

There are two superior alternatives to making Ian Johnson the 3rd string running back of the Minnesota Vikings. Alternative number 1: Trade Chester Taylor for minor picks or release him, to free up salary cap space and make Ian Johnson the 2nd string running back. It is something of a waste to invest in three backs of such quality, maintaining it makes it more difficult to fill other positions in the roster as well. Alternative number 2: If Ian Johnson attracts attention, trade him for a player of similar quality, at a position where the Vikings are not as strong, from a team weak in backs so that the investment results in a greater marginal return for the Vikings. Both options are more rational than risking tying so many resources in multiple players of one position that has a star in front. One strong backup is plenty to stabilize Adrian's load.
THW make Ian Johnson the third string RB!

As the pro I will first set Definitions: This house: The Minnesota Vikings Ian Johnson: Running back from Boise State, currently on active roster for the Vikings. Ian has had a incredible college career at Boise State. His Sophomore year he scored 25 touchdowns and over all in his college years he scored a total of 58 rushing touchdowns beating Marsha Faulk's old record of 57. At the NFL combine he had the second fastest 40 yard dash. My main point toward the resolution is that Ian Johnson has heart. According to a video released by the vikings web site Ian has been dong every thing possible to find a way to help the team. Even his senior year he was not worried about TD's. He just wanted the team to win. Ahead of him is Adrian Peterson. Who has a good ability to run the ball but lacks short yardage situations. Ian is noted for short yard plays and can break away from the D
Resolved: Human Activity Is a Significant Factor in Global Warming on Planet Earth.

The voting floor is set at 1500. If accepted without permission, Pro automatically wins the debate. ______________________________________________________________I will add in definitions to prevent semantics arguments from arising. DEFINITIONS Human activity: Activity associated with or caused by humans. Global Warming: The state of which the Earth's temperature progressively and abnormally rises, which is attributed to the Greenhouse Effect that is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and pollutants in general. REMEMBER, THIS REFERS TO THE WARMING IN THE PAST 115 YEARS. Planet Earth: The 3rd closest planet from the Sun in the solar system, which is known for being the only known planet that currently sustains life. Significant: Sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention as viewed by the judges with statistically large sample sizesRules:1. Breaking any rules (except for rules related to voting) will result in automatic forfeiture of all seven points to the opponent. If both sides break the rules, votes will be placed as normal. Invalid votes will result in reporting the vote.2. No semantics.3. No forfeiture.4. No Ad Hominem OR mere insults5. Plagiarism is absolutely prohibited. 6. All arguments must be contained within the character limit. Words or characters on videos, soundtracks or pictures are exempted and do not apply. Sources are also exempted.7. (Branches off from above rule) Extra arguments in the comments section are forbidden.8. The debate must be followed under the below structure:Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Opening arguments and Constructive Case, NO REBUTTALSRound 3: More arguments, Rebuttals and Strengthening of original caseRound 4: Final arguments, Clarification of case, counter-rebuttals and rebuttalsRound 5: Clarification of case, Counter rebuttals, rebuttals, closing statements, NO NEW ARGUMENTS9. No trolling or spamming.10. No cheating (Gish-gallop, asking for votes in your favor, etc. )11. Accepting without permission is a forfeiture of the debate.12. Kritiks of the topic are not accepted. As shown, first round is acceptance. I look forward to a fun and intriguing debate!
Evolution true and creationism is not

It is wrong to compare energy and gravity with God. The difference is there is no proof or reason to claim that their is a God behind the effects of matter. Although we cannot see or touch energy or gravity, they are consistent forces that we can witness and measure. It is taking a very big leap to say that the force behind it is a divine creator. Before I answer your last question I would like to point out the Evolution didn't occur by "chance", it is a natural process. It is also more logical to infer Evolution as the explanation of the origin of life. I will give you 2 reasons: 1. Scientists have determined the age of the universe to be somewhere around 13.8 billion years old. Scientists also know the age of the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old. However, the Bible claims the universe, along with Earth and everything else, to have been created 5,000-6,000 years old. It is about equivalent to suggest that the distance from New York to San Francisco is seven yards. The scientific evidence crushes the bibles account of the age of the universe which leads me to believe the Bible is not a reliable source of evidence. 2. The Bible also claims that all life on Earth was intelligently designed 5,000 years ago when we have fossils dated back millions of years. The fossil record suggests organisms changed overtime because bones from older geological strata were not the same as bones from more recent geological strata.
Single Sex Schools Are Good for Education.

Thank you as well for the engaging debate. I believe that I have fulfilled by BoP and proved that at least in some ways Single Sex Schools are good for education. My Con essentially gives a concession here- "I'm not stating that Co-ed schools are the best, even it has cons, but I'm just stating that Co-Ed schools are much better for a child's growth overall." Essentially, my opponent admits that there are upsides and downsides to both of our sides. Also, I admit that Co-Ed schools are probably better. However, this is not the topic of the debate. Had this debate been over which was BETTER, I would lose. This debate is over whether or not it is GOOD. Which, I have shown, is true. Please, I urge you to vote Pro. Thank you.
Single Sex Schools Are Good for Education.

I, as a high school student too, know very well the meaning of Education. But we are not talking about education. We are talking about the impact of being educated in a Single sex school. You yourself have agreed that school is for making people educated. Exactly, its just not book based learning, its even moral based learning that makes you ready for the real world. By making educating students in an environment in which they will be able to indulge with the other gender, what you're doing is making them ready for the REAL world. Isn't that what school is all about? Hindering the learning process? You're not hindering any process, you're merrily making them learn to ADJUST to different environments. Like I have already said, nobody is going to make a student feel comfortable later on life. It may seem "hindering" but what single sex schools are doing is hindering the child's future by making it hard for them later. It is because we are learning to be ready for the future that we go to learn in schools yes? Because everyone wants a bright future. "There are many people over the years that have gone to Boy's or Girl's only schools. To my knowledge, there are not usually any major issues with people after they are into the workforce." -Well, some students might easily adapt to their workplace later on in life, but there are many more who will feel awkward or maybe just not comfortable mingling with the other sex because they have been secluded in an environment in which there has been only ONE gender. Single sex schools might give the right education and all that. But they're not giving the life skills required for the child. And in a workplace, life skills that includes, learning to work with others, play a major role. School life makes up just 14-15 years of an individuals life. You cannot afford to make a person feel "comfortable" for just those years and make it difficult for them to adapt later on in the major years after school life. Single-sex education is ineffective, misguided and may actually increase gender stereotyping, because in these schools where single sex education is prevalent neither sex would be easily able to accept gender differences. Not only that, it doesn't allow either of the sexes to interact and creates a virtual barrier between the two. It is funny how girls can be distraction for you. Later on, girls might be working with you, you might be asked to spear a project with the other gender, you cannot call them a "distraction" and not do the job, can you? Being in a Co-Ed school, it will be much easier for you to do the job, because you wouldn't be shy or feeling different since you have already spent your school life with other gender. I'm not stating that Co-ed schools are the best, even it has cons, but I'm just stating that Co-Ed schools are much better for a child's growth overall. I respect your opinions and thoughts. Thank you very much for taking part in this debate!
Single Sex Schools Are Good for Education.

I believe that I have fulfilled my BoP by providing reasons that, at least in some areas, Single-Sex Schools are good for Education. Sure, there are some negative affects, but there are also several good ones. Education is not necessarily workplace preparation. Education- noun: education; noun: an education 1. the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university. If all school was for was for workplace preparation, why not just do away with the subject of History, being that most jobs don't require any historical knowledge. School is for making people educated. Students need to learn. If they can learn better a certain way, then why should you hinder the learning process? There are many people over the years that have gone to Boy's or Girl's only schools. To my knowledge, there are not usually any major issues with people after they are into the workforce. To your point here- "1) Are you trying to state that when a child has gotten over with school, he/she wouldn't mingle with the opposite gender at work or at home? Distraction?" You know what I mean. There is no reason to be demeaning about it. As I high school student myself, I can attest to the fact that girls can certainly be a distraction. If you think about it, they could have a Co-Ed lunch and any free-times or recreational events. However, there are pros of having single sex classroom environments. There is no reason that your assumptions about their psychological development should get in the way of their path for knowledge.
Single Sex Schools Are Good for Education.

Some parents don't want their children to be in mixed-gender classrooms because, especially at certain ages, students of the opposite sex can be a distraction. 1) Are you trying to state that when a child has gotten over with school, he/she wouldn't mingle with the opposite gender at work or at home? Distraction? It is this mentality that is drawing the line between girls and boys. Single sex schools are paving the way for gender discrimination. Later in life, it is these kids who are going to have trouble mingling in society. If distraction is what you're talking about, then maybe we should have a totally single sex only workplace too? The opposite gender isn't a distraction, by learning to live and study with them, we are helping the individual to develop and be ready for what the future holds! for what REALITY holds. Leonard Sax and others agree that merely placing boys in separate classrooms from girls accomplishes little. But single-sex education enhances student success when teachers use techniques geared toward the gender of their students.Some research indicates that girls learn better when classroom temperature is warm, while boys perform better in cooler classrooms. If that's true, then the temperature in a single-sex classroom could be set to optimize the learning of either male or female students. 2)Hats off to Leonard Sax! Okay, maybe it would work for different gender, but now think for later on, are these kids going to be living in a single sex world only? What is school for? Preparing them for the reality after their school life is over right? No one is going to make use of these so called "techniques" later in life for these kids who have been educated in Single Sex schools alone! It is going to be difficult for them, what these techniques are doing is making individuals feel "comfortable". NO, reality isn't comfortable. It is when a child is young, can he/she moulded properly. What these techniques are doing is moulding them for a future that is totally different. Are students only going to be living/working in hot/cold workplace?! According to what they the feel comfortable in? NO! No one is going to make them feel comfortable later on in life. They have to adjust. By making them adjust at a young age, we're helping them adapt to new surroundings. These kids in single sex schools are going to have a VERY hard time adapting to new environments where the the opposite gender is present. Now, the rest you have typed is a copy paste directly from the Internet. I can merrily do the same too. Instead I have given my own opinions and genuine writings, that is what is expected in a debate.
Single Sex Schools Are Good for Education.

As this debate is based on whether Single Sex schools are good for education, I do not have to prove that Single Sex schools are better, only that they are in some ways good for education. "Some parents don't want their children to be in mixed-gender classrooms because, especially at certain ages, students of the opposite sex can be a distraction. Leonard Sax and others agree that merely placing boys in separate classrooms from girls accomplishes little. But single-sex education enhances student success when teachers use techniques geared toward the gender of their students. Some research indicates that girls learn better when classroom temperature is warm, while boys perform better in cooler classrooms. If that's true, then the temperature in a single-sex classroom could be set to optimize the learning of either male or female students. Some research and reports from educators suggest that single-sex education can broaden the educational prospects for both girls and boys. Advocates claim co-ed schools tend to reinforce gender stereotypes, while single-sex schools can break down gender stereotypes. For example, girls are free of the pressure to compete with boys in male-dominated subjects such as math and science. Boys, on the other hand, can more easily pursue traditionally "feminine" interests such as music and poetry. One mother, whose daughter has attended a girls-only school for three years, shares her experience on the GreatSchools parent community: "I feel that the single gender environment has given her a level of confidence and informed interest in math and science that she may not have had otherwise." Federal law supports the option of single-sex education. In 2006, Education Secretary Margaret Spellings eased federal regulations, allowing schools to offer single-sex classrooms and schools, as long as such options are completely voluntary. This move gives parents and school districts greater flexibility." [1] These are some arguments from the website listed below. [1] http://www.greatschools.org...
Single Sex Schools Are Good for Education.

Co-educational schools are important because they prepare students better for the real world, and do not attempt to segregate students from the realities of adult life. Co educational schools also help in bringing in Gender Equality because males and females are equal in the classroom and are in par with each other. On the other hand, Single Sex Schools promotes sexism and creates a barrier between both the genders. That not being enough, single sex schools also promote poor social skills in children because obviously in today's world I believe, engaging with the opposite gender is vital in all fields from home to work once an individual is over with school.
Leave the latin talk at home

i do know american other wise i wouldnt be typeing it in the debate now would i and second im emothic so im never gona be lke everyone els i rather know things people dont so i can say somthing and have them confused and thinking about what i said confused about if i was talking about them or not i find it funny to watch their puzzled face as i speak the language and to watch them as they try to figure out wat i said
Anabolic steroids should not be allowed for use in professional sports.

Okay this normally isn't my style but I decided to give it a try this time. If steroids become legal, it would be something anybody else has the option to use, such as a better shoe or style of swimsuit. The user would know the risks. In order to buy the steriods, what would be wrong in making the person pass a test before getting the drug, that says [s]he knows the risks, and then sign a paper that [s]he understands the risks that could come from it. People do alot of unhealthy things, some of those people the children look up to. Should every health risk be illegal, because children might look up to the person that takes the risk? Should the military be banned because by joining you have a risk of dying any day, at anytime, and children might want to join? So why should anaboolic steroids be banned?
Anabolic steroids should not be allowed for use in professional sports.

Said drugs should not be used in sports, for a few reasons. 1) Negative effect on the steroid user Steroids, as we all know, speed up protein synthesis to enhance performance. However, there are some harmful side effects to using them. They include: - higher blood pressure - higher cholesterol levels - higher risk of heart disease - liver damage - premature growth - testicular cancer - abnormally large amounts of acne - breast development in men This, obviously, is not good for the steroid user. Furthermore, exercising normally can avoid these problems, and regular exercise is better for physical and mental health. 2) Negative impact on children When children start to get into sports, they normally treat their favorite player as an idol, an image of what they want to be when they grow up. How would they feel if their idol essentially cheated by using drugs so they didn't have to work as hard? Furthermore, what if they decided to use steroids too, because their hero did? 3) Unfair advantage Most professional athletes work hard every day to stay in shape and sharp at their sport. Why should some players get to skip this hard work that everyone else is doing? That's all for now.
Anabolic steroids should not be allowed for use in professional sports.

"If steroids become legal, it would be something anybody else has the option to use, such as a better shoe or style of swimsuit." Yeah, but shoes and swimsuits don't mess up your body. "The user would know the risks." Professional sports are entertainment, and barely anything (let alone entertainment) should involve such kinds of health risks as liver damage, testicular cancer, etc. The only damage involved should be accidental (such as a broken bone), or intentionally (such as in boxing). "So why should anaboolic steroids be banned?" Because they show the kids that you can be like professional athletes without going through the hard work that most of them do. It's like showing kids an easy way out of working for your goal.
The gun control debate is not this simple (see for details)

My opponent is actually doing me a service when he says that 'it is our 2nd amendment right', because he is indeed bringing up a valid point that is not referenced in the picture. My opponent's friend also does me a service by bringing up hunter's families. That is another legitimate point to consider, and one which is not portrayed in the picture. Perhaps some of the voters are disgusted with me, which is fair, as I'm allowing Pro-Gun Rights' points to work for my win, when I am clearly in favor of gun control. That being the case, I will attempt to negate my opponent's points, to be somewhat sporting about this. In response to my fact about where most criminals get guns, my opponent uses a singular case as a refutation. Immediately we can see this is a problem. Anecdotes do not supersede statistics. But onto the anecdote itself, he says that since James Holmes bought his guns legally, I'm wrong. But if guns were illegal, James wouldn't have gotten a hold of those weapons, so this anecdote doesn't really help my opponent at all. The point that a person with a gun could stop James Holmes is like putting a band-aid on a wound. The extra gunman might defuse the situation sooner, but there's still a good chance people will get hurt, whereas if guns had been illegal, James couldn't have gotten one, and there would've been no need to defuse any situation. And to my opponent's friend, the hunters could use bows. Laws don't go into effect immediately after passage, generally. So a person who hunts with a gun could learn to hunt with a bow before the law goes into effect. Keep in mind that my BoP was fulfilled before the refutations, so even if those weren't to your taste, I am still winning the vote.