BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
At which age should young adults be to play violent sports

No, it isn't. That's something that *could* happen, not necessarily what *will* happen. It's a theoretical example. I need proof. Concrete, observational proof that you could show to me of kids getting severely injured in these sports. Since you have failed to provide this proof, I will continue with my contention that it isn't dangerous enough to warrant restriction to younger ages. To the audience, I must reiterate my contention: In these so-called "violent" sports, there is no serious harm to the players that could affect them more than temporarily. In football, ice hockey, and other sports a significant amount of safety equipment is worn to make sure these problems don't happen. Furthermore, kids are slower and not as strong as they are in later years, so the risk of serious injury is also reduced by the fact that they aren't moving as fast or with the same amount of force as kids who are going/have gone through puberty. In fact, the real danger is in high-school and in college sports, where we have seen serious concussions severely affect these players for the rest of their lives. However, I must remind the audience that my opponent contends that these sports should be restricted to *youth* leagues, not high-school or college leagues. Thank you for your time, and I urge you vote against this resolution.
At which age should young adults be to play violent sports

However, even if they are injured, it will not effect the rest of their lives. Bones heal remarkably quick, and the entire episode should only last a month or two at most. I personally have broken my feet, toes, and fingers (mind you, never while playing any sports, including ice hockey), and it only hurt the most the day and the day after I broke it, as long as I didn't walk on it or use the bone. Of course, pain is totally subjective and varies with each person but it will not seriously effect these children for long periods of time.
At which age should young adults be to play violent sports

How do we define violent sports? The word 'violent' is very subjective in and of itself, so how can we define what is violent and what isn't? Suppose we say American football and ice hockey is 'violent'. We must remind ourselves that in both of these sports, all players wear a significant amount of safety gear, which is getting better by the day, and there are many rules in place to prevent severe violence or injury. It is probably better for children playing these sports to break them earlier in their lives- bones will be much quicker to heal in their youth. Because of the safety equipment's prices, many families who play these sports are typically at least in the middle class, and can afford the medical expenses associated with this. If proper procedure is taken medically, such as casts and slings, there is no long-term damage to the bone. Also, at younger ages, kids are slower and have worse hand-eye coordination. As such, it is very unlikely to see severe injuries in younger sports leagues. The danger comes more at the ages my opponent has provided, 12 to 14, where there has been significant athletic and muscle development and kids are faster and stronger than they were. Ultimately, the ages should stand as they are currently.
The Kalam Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God

The argument is as stated in the title, for the tournament phantom is currently active in. I will be CON, and my opponent PRO. The argument can be presented in any way by my opponent. First round, as the Burden of Proof is on my opponent, is for his opening argument. As the rounds would therefore be unbalanced, my opponent should leave his final argument blank, so we have equal characters.My opponent can argue any Kalam Argument, as long as it consists of arguing for a first cause being God.
Resolved: The legal driving age in America should be 21 years old.

lol not really i just ran out of timehttp://youtu.be...First, like i said, you could take the bus. it costs less then driving most of the time gets you where you need to go and you dont need a permit or a license. also if your sixteen it would be best to spend most of your time on school to get better grades. instead of spending your time trying to pass your drivers test. Second, while its true that not every teenager might not have a phone, they can still be easily distracted by people simply being in the car. Third, i agree with you if your allowed to drive you should be able to do everything else. that's why i say we should increase the driving limit to 21 that way you can, vote, go to war, drink legally, ETC.:)
Resolved: The legal driving age in America should be 21 years old.

ok, first of all we can't walk to work if we live on one side of the town and then our work in on the total opposite side of were u live and sometimes your work drive involves a freeway so u want us to walk on the side of a freeway its more likely to gt killed walking then driving cause peopledont know how to drive and they are like in there 20's 30's 40's stuff like that... 2nd i say that not every teenager even has a phone and plus, even they did it wouldnt be a huge problem because they know if there texting, or talking or looking at there facebook on there phones they know they would get into trouble with the law and get a huge amout of a fine so....... third i also, like to say that i don't want the age lmit to be lowered to like 13 years old but, i would like it to be lowered to at least like 14 years old because if they are allowed to drive then they should be allowed to do everything else!!!!!!
Resolved: The legal driving age in America should be 21 years old.

thank you for this debate and here are my points FIRST, if we increase the driving age to twenty-one. we will have more mature drivers on the road. instead of kids talking on there phones while driving, we will have adults who know that there is a time and place for everything. instead of teenagers blasting there radio and rolling down there window we have respectful adults who know that its very rude to the other drivers. Second, it makes teens lazy. and it doesn't stop you from getting a job. you could always ride a bike, or walk to work, making it more cost efficient for you and you also get a work out making you fit. not only that but you could take the bus. so that does not stop you from getting a job. and we get more respectfull mature drivers. :)
Resolved: The legal driving age in America should be 21 years old.

I think we should keep the age fo the driving limit. Point 1. Increasing the age limit from 16 to 21.... Since people have to learn how to drive sometime increasing the age will not alter the number of accidents. Things have been like this for decades and by increasing the driving age, you are denying children the freedom that their parents and grandparents enjoyed. Also,it would stop teenagers from getting jobs and thus harm the economy. Point 2. I think that the age shouldnt be increased because why would you want to punish all the kids in the legal sense of driving for a couple of mistakes that a couple of teenagers did. also, honestly i think that not all teenagers get high or drunk and get in car accidents its more of adults who get into a car acciendent then a teenager.
Resolved: The government should put marijuana in the nations water supply

( Conduct points to Pro for structuring a stupendous response to my argument instead of forfeiting in the last round. ) Now I will attempt to raise the bar. .. . 1: Pro is under the impression that mixing weed with contaminated water will solve all of life's woes. Woe to him who believes such nonsense, This is simply a decoy by an undercover agent of the government to convince everybody that it's ok, only Alex Jones, ( Who is actually President Obama Brother ) has giving me privy information that they plan to take down the entire human race with this devious and cunning tactic. Notice the real solution Pro offered has anything to do with mixing weed with water. .. Tired of your job? smoke some weed! Hate your girlfriend? Smoke some weed! Trying to understand a post from Geo or GWL? Smoke some weed! Out of weed? Smoke some weed! He slipped up and the truth came out. .. .. . All you simply need to do, is, Smoke the Herb, not mix it. 2: Pro has already got some funny faucet technology employed by his manipulating government, he claims, ' Cheery Coke doesn't come out of the faucet but he gets lemons, Lemons are not the same as water, so this argument is flawed. 3: Pro insist that putting weed into water will kill all viruses, the problem with that is, If you kill all the viruses you also kill the whole of humanity, That's because some viruses are vital for human survival, Pro is an undercover agent for Alex Jones and his brother Obama, Who are hell bent on wiping out the entire human civilization, And how could they possibly do that? That's right, putting weed into our water supply. 4; Why not just put weed directly into your beer? " Pro Claims. .. .. Because obama and the FDA wont allow it. .. . Stupid communist fascist muslim atheist. .. .. This is another decoy by the Obama administration, claiming it's not legally allowed to pour beer over your weed, since Pro offered no sources for this claim, I will reject it. Obviously Pro didn't wait long enough for the weed to dry after pouring his beer onto it, whereas I have and I can tell you without any shadow of a doubt, that it's the shizzle my nizzle, the bee's knees, the dogs dangly bits, all rolled into one. .. . That's just how I roll. . http://www.cosmosmagazine.com...
Resolved: The government should put marijuana in the nations water supply

(Source points to the con since he made his arguments ridiculously awesome and I apologize for ever doubting him)1) Its healthier then some other stuff already in the water supply,"Purify the weed not mix it with poison as Pro suggests."But weed is a magical thing that fixes all of lifes woes, its more then possible that putting weed in the water could fix the problem since weed solves so many other problemsTired of your job? smoke some weed!Hate your girlfriend? Smoke some weed!Trying to understand a post from Geo or GWL? Smoke some weed!Out of weed? Smoke some weed!Weed fixes EVERYTHING, putting it in contaminated water would probably fix it too!2) It will make the water taste a hell of a lot better then it currently is....."I personally would prefer my weed to be put into cherry coke, cheery coke and blueberry skunk, is much better than just plain contaminated water"Well Cherry coke isnt what comes out of the faucet so we just gotta live with the lemons that life gave us. When life gives you lemons, put weed in it. 3) Medical Marijuana" it's my suggestion that people should kill the virus's directly with weed, rather than give them the opportunity to become immune"Sounds good to me, we can kill the viruses with weed, so to kill viruses in water we should put weed in the water! 4) its like if beer came out of the sink"Really? Weed and water = beer...?"Its more like terrible decisions + self loathing + boredom = weed beer, but the metric system is tricky so I dont know the exact translation. "Why not just put weed directly into your beer? "Because obama and the FDA wont allow it.... Stupid communist fascist muslim atheist....."or better yet just pour your beer over your weed and roll that mother up and blaze that bud..."You cant light beer on fire, trust me ive tried.
Resolved: The government should put marijuana in the nations water supply

My opponent has stated that if I take him seriously then the debate will suck, this leaves me in a bit of a quandary, I have to undermine his arguments whilst at the same time avoid being serious so that the debate won't suck. lol You must be kidding..... I'm dead serious and still the debate won't suck, My opponent also claims to have the backing of Armadas to assist him in trolling the seas, or it might be outta space, JUST NOT ON LAND... Now on to rebuttals. 1) Its healthier then some other stuff already in the water supply, Yes, True, it is healthier than most of the stuff already in the water, but that doesn't mean that by mixing in good weed with contaminated water, that is the right solution, that is only going to entice more people who like weed to drink water, and what happens when you drink water? as my opponent has proven with his link, it's contaminated with all types of poisonous chemicals....Purify the weed not mix it with poison as Pro suggests. 2) It will make the water taste a hell of a lot better then it currently is..... This is purely a subjective assertion, I personally would prefer my weed to be put into cherry coke, cheery coke and blueberry skunk, is much better than just plain contaminated water, also beer and weed in a can sounds super cool... 3) Medical Marijuana Again mixing good weed with contaminated water is only going to entice more people to drink contaminated water, this will increase bugs and viruses and eventually the virus will find a way to become immune to weed, because it will develop an immune system to weed by mixing it with water. this is actually very dangerous, it's my suggestion that people should kill the virus's directly with weed, rather than give them the opportunity to become immune. 4) Its like if beer came out of the sink! Really? Weed and water = beer...? Why not just put weed directly into your beer? or better yet just pour your beer over your weed and roll that mother up and blaze that bud...Whoop Whoop. Conclusion, Pro has not made a good case convincing enough to show that a combination of weed and water is a good combination. the more you keep weed away from that contaminated pesky water the government issue us, The Better... Back to Pro.
Resolved: The government should put marijuana in the nations water supply

"I have decided to debate one of the most prestigious members of debate.org, and defeat him in arguments and try to win the debate"I can tell this debate might really suck depending on if you really do plan on taking this debate seriously.... "regardless of his legion of fans who are stoners and wish for marijuana to be mandatory in our water supplies by the order official governments"Whoa whoa whoa there..... I do not have legions of fans, I have ARMADAS, theres a difference.... I run a predominantly naval based empire over here (economically structured around trolling exportation), not a land based one. Just clarifying======================================================================Reasons for putting Marijuana in the water supply1) Its healthier then some other stuff already in the water supplyIn the current US water supply you can find cryptosporidium, chromium, chlordane, flouride, and other chemicals that are known carcinogens which makes tap water risky to drinkhttp://www.mnn.com...Putting weed in the water at his point would actually make it safer. Kinda.2) It will make the water taste a hell of a lot better then it currently isWhen was the last time you drank some sink water and thought to yourself "Wow, I would love to have some more and share some of this with friends!"? Im guessing you havent said that in forever, if at all. Putting weed in water would make it more tasty since the same thing has been proven to work when putting weed in brownies.....3) Medical Marijuana Marijuana has widespread potential use as medicine for numerous ailments, and putting marijuana in the water supply would mathematically be making it healthier since normal water doesnt do sh*t for fighting diseases. In fact, all things depend on water to survive, so 100% of all viruses, bacterias, tumors, etc consume water. That makes water super duper dangerous for millions of Americans. That though can be fixed by putting marijuana in the water, which mathematically would make it healthier to drink since water is a cesspool for breeding all kinds of nasty diseases whereas Marijuana has not. 4) Its like if beer came out of the sink!Marijuana gets you high and puts you in a state similar to being hammered drunk right? Well that means putting weed in the nations water supply will be like turning water into beer, MINUS all the negative side effects of drinking beer!Thats all I got, over to you con.
Messi the best ever even if he doesn't win an international trophy

Lionel Messi is not the best player in the history of the game. Although he has 26 trophies with Barcelona, the title "Best player" is deserving of an all-rounder. Making history with FCBarcelona makes him the best player in the history of the club. What makes players like Maradona, Ronaldo (Brazil) and Pele some of the greatest is that they not only had exceptional skill but out shined everyone of their generation in BOTH club and country. Messi's success of winning Ballon d' Ors is based on his statistics at Barcelona. He has great talent and magically outstanding ball-control however, without the likes of Xavi, Iniesta, Rakitic, Alves and Alba, would Messi really have succeeded and scored as many goals as he has? I think not.
Messi the best ever even if he doesn't win an international trophy

Lionel messi is considered one of the best ever to grace the beautiful game, Football. He has won 26 trophies with Barcelona and all that is because of his alien-like goal scoring capabilities that go along with his unmatched dribbling skills. He's got everything in him, goals, assists, key passes, passing skills, pace, and let's not forget his short physique in which against all odds has the power to prove the science of center of gravity all wrong. Many have said he is the best ever but still, there are some who keep saying that not untill he wins it with Argentina will he be considered the best of all time. To prove all of you wrong, Maradona, his countryman who holds all the praises at the moment, scored the Solo goal that first of all didn't look as classy as many put it, scored the first goal of the game with his hand. If the officials saw that and called it then history was going on a very different path. Messi scored a similar goal which was even better and he has done it again and again against many different teams which are great. He has won 5 ballon dor's. Five!! let me stop there guys. you should judge for yourselves.
Android phones are better then Apple's

Hmm That's a very strong answer you have given me! I agree that iphone has much better features, gets updated quite often, but again let's say a person who really cant afford much, lives in a foreign country, lets say a student! He has very limited budget and wants to stay in contact with his family members! In these circumstances he definitely won't go for the expensive iphone but he would go for the an android phone which is affordable. In a nutshell Android phones can be literally be afforded by anyone!! My homeland is Pakistan and trust me not every person can even afford a super cheap motor cycle! But he has a smartphone, might not be the best android phone but he has it!!! It didn't have any other option now did he! His only one option was Android phones, there was no option for him to buy an Iphone! And as you are talking about the programs, well you are absolutely correct about that but let's say there is a game (Just an example, this might not be real) which is for both platforms but if you are using an android phone then you can only play with android users and if your an apple user you can only play with apple users! So what will happen is that the android user will definitely find players earlier then the iphone user simply because of more users! One more thing I would like to tell you is that the multi tasking that an android user can do is very much better then an iphone user! You can argue IOS does multi-tasking all you want. And it"s true, you can do multiple things at once by switching apps back and forth, but that doesn't even come near to the level of multi-tasking some Android phones offer. Take Samsung as an example, which introduced multi-window long ago, in which you can view multiple apps at once. Plenty of other manufacturers have also been doing this for years, even if we will admit this is one area where stock Android lags behind.
Android phones are better then Apple's

Hi! I use both phones too. I think that android phones are more customizable but it isn't always about decorating. There is way more to it than that. Such as apps and games. We know that most popular games and apps are on both platforms but there is more iphone only apps than android only app. Even if the apps are on both platforms they tend to be better looking on iphones and the apps get updated more frequently such as snapchat and spotify. They both have more features than the android versions of them. You are saying that iphones are more expensive. Obviously they are. Do you know why? Well it is because iphones have way more features than androids(even more than samsung.) Since they have way more features they are worth the price. Another point iphones get updated to the latest ios version up to three years. For example the iphone 4 has ios 9 and the iphone 5 has ios 10 but androids are only up to 18 months so if you want android nougat you may simply have to get another android phone. So if you talk about the price two androids are the same price as 1 iphone so as i say the price is worth it. What do you say to that?
Android phones are better then Apple's

Ok so I am an experienced person in this technology and stuff and I am fortunate enough to use both kind of phones (Android ones mostly) So the reason I am with the Android phones is because they are customizable and are literally very simple to use, iphones too are easy to use but then not every one can get used to this iphone!! I mean Android is very much change able, for example look at HTC they customized Android for their phones look at Cyangogen, they made there name by modifying android in an awesome way! Lets not go too much to the software. Lets check on the hardware side. I highly agree that the phone phones have won in the hardware side but then jumps up the price!!! Android phones are phones that now at least about 60% of people can afford,you can get them very cheap and also super expensive, so they are for almost everyone but iphones are mainly for businessmen and are super expensive! So what are your thoughts against my argument?
Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage.

Your personal opinion has nothing to do with this debate " Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage." Deals with what the politicians want to raise the minimum wage to not what you want it as. The government will not raise it to $10 they will raise it above that as I have argued. Even if they were to raise it to $10 it would still be bad. take for example a business, this business pays it's employees livable wages and all is good. however if that minimum wage is raised then what is the point of paying someone $10 to bag food at the local convenience store, clean the halls of a building, or flip burgers. It is not economical nor is it logical; if I have to pay my employees more for average performance then I would fire the under performing one's that I could have afforded before and keep the more skilled hard working ones. then I would just replace the expandable labor with machines, because they would cost cheaper in the long run. But keep believing that business owners will just keep paying lazy people foe crap performance. You want to pay people at Walmart $10 an hour, be my guest, just don't expect there to be Walmart there or that it will help the economy with it's donations like it has been doing.