BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 1992 Dream Team would defeat the 2012 Team USA.

I'm sorry you had to forfeit Con. All arguments extended. I would like to make a few other points. 1. The Dream Team defeated other teams by an average of 43.8 points, while Team USA won by an average of 32.1 points. 2. For Tyson Chandler the only decent seven footers he faced in 2012 were Pau Gasol, Roy Hibbert, Chris Kaman, Andrew Bogut, and Andrew Bynum. Except for Gasol, none of the others are that good. Or at least Ewing and Robinson good. 3. James, Bryant, Durant, Paul, and Anthony are good, but compare that to Michael Jordan, the passing of Magic Johnson, the shooting of Larry Bird, the blocking of Patrick Ewing, the rebounding of Charles Barkley, the 3-pt. shooting of Chris Mullin, the versatility of Scottie Pippen, the leader in steals of John Stockton, the second chance effort by Karl Malone, the dominance of David Robinson, and Christian Laettner, who is one of the best college players of all time.
kids should play sports at any age

Kids should not play ALL sports at any age. Some sports are too dangerous for young children to play. Children should be allowed to start developing certain skills to play sports at an even younger age than children should play the actual sport. However, when you say 'kids at ANY age should play sports' this argument is simply invalid. Should a child that is 9 months old play soccer or basketball or any sport at all for that matter? Of course the answer is clearly NO. A little less clear would be the debate of a 5 year old, but should a 5 year old play full-contact tackle football (as some in fact do)? I would argue the safety of the 5 year old is at risk of damage that could affect the rest of his or her life. The aggressive nature of a sport like football can lead to concussions, broken bones, etc. The same would go for a sport like hockey or even more aggressive sports like boxing or MMA. Additionally, there are a multitude of other more extreme sports that only a much older child or adult should partake in such as tree-skiing, or rock-climbing.
Picking your teeth with your fingers is better than picking your teeth with a toothpick.

Counter Argument 1- HealthTherefore the average person should wash their hands nine times a day if they practice sanitary hand washing habits making their hands much cleaner than a run of the mill toothpick. A study showed from the New York Times {1} shows that more than 25% of men and women do not wash his or her hands after using the bathroom. Another study shows {2} that 33% of men and women do not wash their hands after using the bathroom. The same study {2} shows that 33% of people do not wash hands after coughing and sneezing. This shows that people may wash their hands only two times a day after using the bathroom six times a day. Furthermore, 40% of men and women do not wash his or her hand after eating. This thus shows that an avege person may not wash their hands nine times a day. This then means that hands may be affected with bacteria. Toothpicks, on the other hand, are touched by a person and then used. Counter Argument 2- ScenarioAnd if you must pick your teeth there is nothing stopping you from excusing yourselfto go to the bathroom and pick your readily handy fingers. As I have countered above, using fingers may get you diseases. As for manners, it is horrible to see a stranger, in the bathroom, picking his teeth. Of course, the person who sees you will be disgusted. He or she probably thinks: "Yuck. That guy/girl went to the bathroom and then picked his teeth! "Counter Argument 3- Ease of Access/CostIf you are not in possession of a toothpick you cannot pick your teeth however you will neer have that problem while using your fingers since they are attached to you. Many dine-in resturants have toothpicks to give. If there are no toothpicks, use a napkin. Using a thin piece, take out the piece of popcorn. Even picking your teeth with a napkin is nicer to see than picking your teeth with your fingers. You may use napkins instead of toothpicks. Counter Argument 4- Toothpicks are DangerousToothpicks are smooth. {4}. The only way you can get a splinter is breaking it in half on purpose and stabbing yourself. As pictures show, toothpicks are smooth. Toothpicks would not get stuck in your teeth because teeth are very close together. Lastly, nearly no one would swallow a toothpick. How do you swallow a toothpick? Sticking it down your throat? There is no way of ingesting a toothpick. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Contention 4- NamesThe "toothpick" is used for picking your teeth. Why else is it called "toothpick? " Tooth-pick. Fingers? I don't see the word tooth or pick in the word. {5}. {1} . http://www.nytimes.com... {2} www. brainpopjr. com/health/bewell/washinghands/grownups. weml {3} . http://skeptics.stackexchange.com... {4} . http://en.wikipedia.org... {5} LogicI thank my opponent and wish everyone a Happy New Year. Well, sort of. That's in two days. ..
Picking your teeth with your fingers is better than picking your teeth with a toothpick.

Yes, this shall be a rather casual. Contention 1- Health As we all know, fingers contain numerous amounts of colonies of contagious bacteria. {1}. Furthermore, these bacteria will get to the enamel or/and into your mouth. The eyes, mouth, and nose are spots where bacteria may come into your body with ease. This leads to sickness of some sort. Nobody wants to be sick, right? With a toothpick, you may pick your teeth and the tartar off of your enamel. Because toothpicks have less colonies of bacteria on them, it makes a better choice than fingers. Even fingernails may cause harm because of dirt trapped in the nails. Scenario 1/ Contention 2- Manners A) You finished eating dinner. After touching forks, spoons, chopsticks, knives, bowls, table, and the menu, you pick your teeth. Not only is this extremely disgusting to watch, but you also risk the chance of getting a disease. Fever, fatigue, and appetite loss may hit you. Even worse, you ate dinner with your boss. This shows that you have no manners whatsoever and the boss may never shake hands again. B) You finished eating dinner. You grab a toothpick and start picking your teeth. Your boss sees you and doesn't care. Toothpicks are thus more helpful when getting a positive reaction from your boss. Contention 3- Effectiveness Toothpicks, no doubt, are more effective than fingers when picking teeth. {3}. Toothpicks maneuver with ease in the tight places from two teeth. Fingers/fingernails cannot. {1} . http://www.sciencentral.com... {2} . http://en.wikipedia.org... {3} . http://www.parkaveperio.com... I await my opponent's response.
Writing contest #1.

I accept the challenge. I believe my story will be better than my opponent's story. And I will make sure my opponent's story is 10,000 characters. However, I would like to add a few rules. Here are the rules: 1) No forfeiting. 2) Your story must be complete, and can't cut off at the end. 3) All 10,000 characters must be used. 4) I must count at least 1,000 words. And by "I", I mean Microsoft Word.
zits are cool

My opponent states that "all attractice celebrities have zits. " However, attractiveness is fundamentally subjective, and he has not refuted nor contested this point. Moreover, neither my arguments nor my syllogisms have been addressed. My opponent, also, has failed to uphold his burden of proof. To refute his point further: a lot of people -- myself included -- find Jennifer Anniston attractive. Jennifer Anniston doesn't have a zit. Therefore, Pro's contention is null. Conclusion All of my arguments have been dropped. He has not established the criteria by which to establish an objectivity conception of "cool. " Therefore, he has not fulfilled his burden of proof.
Animal research is very beneficial and not that bad

Thank you for accepting, Con. Glad to see a worthy opponent, should be a good debate!Cures developed from animal researchAnimal research can/has led to life saving cures! Because we have tested on animals, we now know more about the Malaria lifecycle due to research on pigeons. Not to mention tuberculosis from sheep and cows, Typhus from rats and other rodents, function of neurons from cats and dogs, treatment of haemophilia (cat), penicillin (mouse), open heart surgery (dog), lithium (rat, guinea pig), treatment for leprosy (armadillo), organ transplantations (dog, sheep, cow, pig), laproscopic surgical techniques (pig), and a drug for AIDS treatment (monkey). Not to mention a vaccine for one of the most wide known diseases, small pox! (cow) [1] Benefits for humansAnimals have also improved a longer lifespan, and larger healthcare for humans, creating many types of medicines ranging from Luekemia to rabies! This can keep us safe from diseases that we do not want. Research has also developed anti-biotics to blood transmissions. It has also helped us with organ transplants, bypass surgery, and joint replacement. These can keep us alive if we need a organ or if we need a joint/surgery. [2]Animal research by the numbersHere are just some facts about what animal research has done/been involved in. [3]- 92% of scientists polled in a Nature survey agreed that animal research is essential to the advancement of biomedical science.- 85% of the Nobel Prizes awarded in Physiology or Medicine have been dependent on research with animals.- Over 99% of animals used in research are specifically bred for research, so we aren't really harming the environment, keeping most animals alive.Animals that are in research- Approximately 95% of all animal research is conducted on mice, rats, and fish.Other species are used only when necessary. [3]Mice, rats, and fish are not threatened by this at all. As a matter of fact, look at all the rat species! (http://en.wikipedia.org...)Mice aren't threatened by this either, they have many species as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)And fish, with over 32,000 species, aren't threatened at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)So as you can see, we do not test on animals that are threatened, so the environment is not affected! We can spare a few rats, mice, and fish because they are so vast in species.Con, you're up! I look forward to your rebut and arguments!Cites:[1]- http://www.pro-test.org.uk...[2]- http://www.pro-test.org.uk...[3]- http://speakingofresearch.com...
Teenagers Should Have Unlimited Access to Computers and The Internet

As I stated in Round One, the child will have had previous instruction in good habits on the internet from their parents, as limits could be placed pre-age-13. The parents will be able to teach the child internet safety and time management such that when the parents decide they are mature enough to venture out on the internet on their own, they will understand enough to not deal with potentially dangerous sites or people. In my argument, I stated that the children would have unrestricted access to the internet, however, if the parent believes that they are not getting important things done such as homework, they can make sure the child will get their homework done before using the computer, and that will not interfere with my "unlimited access" argument. Being a teenager myself, I understand the possible side effects of having unrestricted access to the internet, like as you stated, not being able to concentrate, but in the past, I have still been able to complete any school assignments and sustain straight A's in all of my classes. As with social networking sites, the child will be assumed to have knowledge of how to use the internet safely. The child will have been taught not to share any personal information and use proper privacy settings. Filtering sites "during homework time" won't be necessary as the parent could see that the homework gets done prior to access to the computer. Accessing pornography will not be affected, as state laws will still require a person to be over a certain age to be able to view such material. Finally, When I say "unlimited", I mean unlimited access to the internet while they are using a computer or other internet-enabled device. Parents will still have the authority to punish a child by not letting them use a computer, and/or force them to get off a computer unconditionally. However, when they are using a computer or internet-enabled device, they will not be restricted on content accessible.
Teenagers Should Have Unlimited Access to Computers and The Internet

Definitions: Unlimited (from Random House Dictionary): unrestricted, without any qualification or exception; unconditional [1] I negate by showing that teenagers should have access to computers/internet, but parents should have the right to place limits, conditions, and restrictions on that access. Types of limits: 1. Time Teenagers need to learn good time management skills, and parents can help teach them these skills by requiring that certain time periods be designated "homework time" and certain time periods be designated "free time." Otherwise, teenagers develop something called "continuous partial attention," which is a habit whereby someone does work, while also performing other tasks (such as online chat or social networking), without ever devoting their full attention to either task. [2] This is a terrible habit to develop, and it causes work quality to greatly suffer. In addition, there are physical worries in regards to too much computer use, such as carpel tunnel, eye problems, and even death (a girl died due to dehydration in China playing World of Warcraft for 48 hours straight). Parents should be able to enforce time limits to teach children moderation. 2. Content Parents should have the right to prevent their teenagers (13+) from viewing pornography, for example. They should be allowed to install content filtering programs on their children's computers. They should be allowed to restrict certain websites (like Facebook) during homework time. And parents should have the right to prevent children from downloading music and movies illegally, since the parents are the ones who would be liable in any lawsuit filed by the RIAA or MPAA. 3. Conditions Parents should have the right to restrict computer use as a punishment/incentive. If a parent threatened "take out the garbage or no video games for a week," and you affirm the resolution, parents would lose all their authority because children would be guaranteed unlimited computer access by law. If children are given unlimited computer access, disciplinary issues could arise. Being sent to your room certainly isn't as bad if you're given unlimited computer access during the punishment. 4. Child molesters Parents should have the right to ensure that children are not sharing too much personal information online, such as their home address. Molesters often use Myspace or Facebook to find an attractive victim and then use personal information the child has shared, such as a home address, to track the child down. [3] [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.businessweek.com... [3] http://childsafetips.abouttips.com...
Teenagers Should Have Unlimited Access to Computers and The Internet

Responding to my opponent's recent round: My opponent says: "I agree that absolutely no restrictions on children is bad. " I consider this effectively conceding the round since "unlimited" means no restrictions. My opponent keeps arguing that children of 13 are responsible enough to make all of their own decisions, even though 14% of them still decide to physically meet with strangers they met online. In addition, if children are responsible enough at 13 to make all their own decisions (without their parents), why not make the drinking age 13, the smoking age 13, and allow 13 year olds to decide whether or not they want to continue attending school (instead of making it mandatory)? Why not let 13 year olds decide to join the military and why not let 13 year olds decide to get married (without parental approval)? Why not make the age of (sexual) consent 13? Society obviously acknowledges that 13 year olds are not old enough to make all of the right decisions, without parental oversight. My opponent claims the internet increases maturity level. His only evidence is himself. Many teenagers actually use the internet in immature ways: to Photoshop and post obscene photos, to make "gay" jokes with their friends, to bully other children, etc. His experience cannot be generalized to everyone. My opponent points out that adults can also choose to download illegally. However, if an adult downloads illegal content, the adult is liable if sued. If a child downloads illegally, the parents are liable if sued. Because the child's actions (illegally downloading a movie/music) could hurt the parents (a lawsuit costing millions of dollars), the parents should have a right to limit the child's internet use in this regard. My opponent claims: "Letting a child do homework whenever they feel like it will actually increase productivity, by cutting down on procrastination. " Actually, in my personal experience working with high school students, students who are allowed unlimited access to Facebook are the ones who are most likely to turn their assignments in late and to procrastinate until the last minute. Teenagers need their parents to help them learn time management skills. My opponent claims that teenagers will get bored with the internet, but I've seen high schoolers spend 8 hours straight on Facebook without getting bored. Parents need the right to say: "do your homework first. " My opponent says that children need to learn technology. I agree. But in moderation, allowing parents to set reasonable limitations on their internet/computer use. Taking all authority over computers/internet away from parents and giving it to teenagers is like letting the mental patients run the asylum. Reject my opponent's tyrannical attempt to usurp parental authority.
Teenagers Should Have Unlimited Access to Computers and The Internet

I agree that absolutely no restrictions on children is bad, but as I've mentioned before, the limits won't be removed from the children until they reach the age of 13. Before this time, the parent will make sure the child realizes that there are many bad people out there, and they should be careful. My opponent says that "children make bad decisions and need to be monitored." This is true, however, the child would make better decisions if they were exposed to the internet more and saw how some people make bad decisions (such as trolling) and how the community treats them. And please keep in mind that these are teenagers who are expected to be mature. These are not just "children" who are still in elementary school. These are teenagers that are about to go into high school. There's no doubt the internet will increase your maturity level. I consider myself to be very knowledgeable for my age. This is likely a result of my exposure to the internet, an unlimited source of information. That being said, I understand different teenagers might function in different ways, and that the internet might not help them as it did with me. My opponent states that "unlimited access would ban parents from installing ... 'parental control' software on their child's computer." If a child is responsible, such software should not be necessary. As with downloading illegal material, the child should understand that committing such act is, in fact, a crime. I agree that children should not be partaking in this act, however, just because a child is doing it, it doesn't make it right for an adult to do it. You are referring to children as if they were different, but please keep in mind that adults are just as capable of doing so, and it is not any less illegal for a child to do so. I understand that an adult would be responsible for their own actions, and a child's parent would be responsible for the child's actions, but either way, it is an act of crime and is the same as going to a store and stealing a disc, and shouldn't be done in the first place. A responsible child will understand their duties to do homework. Plus, there's only so much a person can do on the internet. A child will likely only use a few sites, and will get bored after a while. There's always time to do homework, and a responsible child will get it done in time sooner or later. Letting a child do homework whenever they feel like it will actually increase productivity, by cutting down on procrastination. Our world is changing. We are in the information age. In the future, the world will be centered around technology even more so than it is today. In the future, technological ability will be what really matters. Children need to be exposed to this technology so they will be able to achieve greater things when they get older. We need to help the next generation be tech-savvy because technology is what the future will hold.
Teenagers Should Have Unlimited Access to Computers and The Internet

Responding to my opponent's recent round: He says that a new law giving teenagers unlimited computer/internet access would cause parents to change their approach. If this were true, it should have already happened. I'm assuming 100% of parents know that there are child molesters out there and 100% don't want their children molested. Yet still 14% of children decide to physically meet with a "stranger" who they met online. Children make bad decisions and need to be monitored. Having one chat with a child is not enough for lasting change. My opponent points out that being overly restrictive as a parent is bad. This, however, does not prove that parents should impose NO restrictions at all on their children. In addition, each parent should decide how restrictive they want to be, knowing full well that their teenager might resent them if they impose too many restrictions on them. The government does not have the right to legislate and micro-manage parenting decisions. My opponent says: "Perhaps I made a mistake when I began this debate." I agree that he likely did make a mistake when drafting the topic. However, the instigator should not have the right to change the topic halfway through the debate. My opponent is stuck with the topic he originally drafted, which states that teenagers should have NO restrictions on their internet/computer use. Pornography: One form of "limit" is a type of computer software that blocks certain sites, like known porn sites (such as "dot xxx" sites) and chat rooms known to be frequented by sex offenders. Unlimited access would ban parents from installing such "parental control" software on their child's computer. My opponent says: "meaning can be altered to fit a point of view." The only way to have predictable debates is to use a dictionary to find the most common usage for a word. Two people cannot debate each other if they are both relying on subjective definitions of what the topic means to them. I provided a dictionary definition of "unlimited." My opponent does not answer my most important argument: parents should have the right to ban children from illegally downloading on the internet, because if the RIAA (music industry) or MPAA (movie industry) catches the child, they will be suing the parents (not the child) and will go after the parents' money (not the child's meager piggy bank). My other key argument is that parents should have the right to say "no computer games or Facebook until you finish your homework." Unlimited computer/internet access would not allow such a restriction to be placed upon children. Children will thus not learn good time management skills.