BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The NFL is too soft

Better safe than sorry! And you say this is "penalizing" the players. I wouldn't define extra protection as penalizing. These measures seriously reduce the risk of injury. Injury is something that most people try to avoid. What is so terrible about a little extra padding here and there? Back in the 70s, concussions and serious spine injuries among football players were common. Since then, additional safety precautions have led to an incredible reduction in the amount of cases. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you WANT the players to be injured. Or at least, express indifference regarding their safety.
The NFL is too soft

But the problem is that injuries are part of the game. The NFL can police it as much as they want, but nothing will ever totally prevent Injuries. Every single player knows the risk that they are taking by playing professional football, going against the biggest and best players In the world every week. All these flags for helmet to helmet hits are ridiculous. I know a player is able to be injured on any play, but the game is so fast that the defensive players don't have much choice but to get them down anyway possible. Players shouldn't be penalized for something they can hardly control.
The NFL is too soft

As an avid NFL fan, I believe that the NFL has become way too soft of a sport. There's a reason why the players wear pads and helmets. It helps them to stay protected, but yet the NFL and specifically referees go even further to protect them with all of the dumb penalties such as "hit on a defenseless receiver. How in the world can they be defenseless if they have the ball?? According to nflstatistics.com, through 5 weeks of the season, there has been a total of 1057 penalties called. In 2009 through week 5, there was 947 penalties called. Call me crazy but I enjoy hard hitting fast paced football. That is slowly deteriorating before our eyes.
Animal Testing is essential

I would like to apologize for forfeiting Round 3; I was away and did not have an Internet connection. I would like to thank my opponent for forfeiting his Round 4, giving us an equal number of rounds. Now on to the debate. First of all, cosmetics are described as product that enhance appearance, not health, by many sources:- . http://en.wikipedia.org...- . http://dictionary.reference.com...- . http://dictionary.reference.com...- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...- . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... So one cannot say that they are essential. My opponent takes issue with the fact that I used a link from PETA, accusing it of being biased. The thing is, whether or not a certain organization is biased does not affect in ANT WAY the legitimacy of their claim; it may prompt someone to confirm what they are saying, but one cannot dismiss anything they say on the sole basis that they are biased. Yes, all of the alternatives that I've described have flaws, but so does animal testing. If we combine all of the alternatives method, I believe we can get results that are far superior than animal testing. Here are a few other alternatives (they all have flaws, obviously): - Medical imaging- SEURAT-1 (. http://www.seurat-1.eu...)- Euroecotox For more: . http://en.wikipedia.org...In conclusion, I agree with my opponent that animal testing is useful, although I disagree that it is essential.
Animal Testing is essential

Making a link to PETA! Probably the most bias organisation in any animal rights debate. Obviously I do have concerns for animal rights and I feel where possible alternatives should be used but I feel at this point in time they are not good enough and animal testing is pivotal. The alternatives you have suggested such as Ceetox have flaws, I have scoured there whole website and I cannot find any text or document which mentions any significant success of their products. Again, the problem with the chips is described well in this Scientific American article (http://www.scientificamerican.com...): "the chips may not capture certain crucial aspects of living physiology the way whole animal tests do". "If you don"t use as close to the total physiological system that you can, you"re likely to run into troubles". Furthermore through testing human blood or human cells you can"t see the way the whole physiological system of the human body is going to be affected. On contrary to your last point, many more animal-friendly drugs have proved to be effective in humans. Even if they have caused harm to humans they can be manipulated and eventually evolve to become successful. Let"s think about the greater good of animal testing, all the positives it"s brought about for people (and animals themselves) suffering from conditions such as diabetes and cancers. Although I can see your point with cosmetics not been essential I am pretty sure many humans would not want to give up their products. The US FDA includes in its description of cosmetics anything which is applied to the human body for "cleansing". So we have to think beyond make-up, Vaseline and lip balm are even included in the cosmetics category. Many of these items are not used for beauty but for human health. Therefore many cosmetics items should be viewed as essential.
Animal Testing is essential

The topic of this debate is whether animal testing is essential. I will argue that animal testing is in fact NOT essential.We can start of by putting aside all arguments concerning the testing of cosmetic products on animals, since these products are hardly 'essential' to humans. It therefore follows that the testing of such product on animals is not essential either.Animal testing also occurs in the case of medicine, where most people would perhaps view it as 'less wrong' than in the case of cosmetic. But what a lot of people don't know, is that there are alternative methods of testing medicines;1) CeeTox, which predicts the level of toxicity and the chance of success of a new drug.http://www.ceetox.com...2) Organs-on-Chips are chips that virtually reproduce a specific organ in order to predict its reactions to a certain drug.http://wyss.harvard.edu...3) Testing human blood and human cells is also a good way to predict the effects of a new drug.You can find more alternative methods here: http://www.peta.org...It is also important to note that animal testing is not always efficient; many animal-friendly drugs have turned out to be harmful to humans. That is the case for HIV, some cancers, diabetes, heart problems, and many others.
Animal Testing is essential

Animal research has played a part in nearly every medical advancement over the past decade. Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since 1901 has relied on animal data for their research. Modern painkillers, the tetanus vaccine, penicillin, insulin and many more drugs all relied on animal research in their development. Also it's not just medicine. Many people wear make-up, many people wear hair-styling products etc. All these different products rely on animal testing in the stages of manufacture, without animal testing these products would be unsafe to use. At current, there is no viable alternative which could completely replace animal testing in trials therefore making animal testing essential.
Mitt Romney: Jeep will move all production to China

Now I would like to ask why you didn't refute the claim that in the video of GM's CEO who gave a speech in China? This video clearly tells the people that they are in fact sending jobs to China. It's funny the day after this comes out GM is down 14% in their profit. [1] I believe sincerely without a shadow-of-a-doubt that proves Romney's claim. My opponent doesn't have any citations in the first area of his rebuttal claiming, "The company expects to hire 5,700 new American workers by next year to build Jeeps in America, but I have one question: Why aren't there jobs here now when Americans need them most? The president spent a plethora of money to save the auto industry, but they are using that money in China. My opponent wants to claim that there is a higher demand of Jeep in China, while nerly 7/10 of those jobs are in China (Refer to source 2). I am not denying Romney went a little quick on this one, but if you look deeper into the problem, except superficially it appears Romney's claim is spot on. My argument for this round is that Romney in fact made a true claim as evidenced by citation 2 in the previous round. [1] . http://www.autoblog.com...;
Mitt Romney: Jeep will move all production to China

It is good to debate with him again. I would like to apologize to the people in the comment section if they were going to accept my bad. Resolution: Automotive maufacturers ARE moving their sales to companies in China, proving Romney's statement valid and shouldn't be criticized any further. So we don't get any untrue statements from my partner and I here is the video: [1]. Alright from what the video says Romney claimed that Jeep is sending their production to China. First of all, this is true, but first I would like to point out that this is not only Jeep that is going to send their production overseas. CEO of GM, claimed at a speech in China that 7/10 of all production is there in China, and is claiming to move more to China. [2] So how can thins be false when Obama bailed out the auto industry? Doesn't this mean 70% of your tax dollars from the auto bailout is going to China and other places overseas? This is the premise of my argument and I will further debate the subject next round. [1] . http://www.youtube.com... [2] . http://www.youtube.com...
Mitt Romney: Jeep will move all production to China

At a campaign stop in Ohio, Governor Mitt Romney told an audience that automotive manufacturer, Jeep, was recently sold to "the Italians," and was "thinking about moving all production to China."I maintain that this is not a true statement of fact, and wish to debate the subject.I will adopt the position of "Con," since I want to challenge the premise that Jeep is in any way to move all production to China. I ask that Pro defend Governor Mitt Romney's claim that Jeep is preparing to transfer "all production to China." Despite having many of us liberals repeatedly decry this as a mistake or a deception, the Romney campaign has not retracted the statement.I am willing to be fairly relaxed concerning any rules for this debate, and am willing to honor any agreements made in the comments section. My only real request is that we set aside the final round for summaries of our best arguments - as a convenience to readers who may wish to vote on our performances. I feel that such summaries allow readers to more easily digest our arguments quickly, and allows them to understand our emphasis.Pro may begin arguments at once, in R1, if they so choose; this is a short debate at only three rounds. I don't expect to need more than two rounds for my presentation.I present this debate in order that I may discuss, in the company of intelligent persons, a statement that I feel was an intentional attempt to deceive the (already gullible) American electorate... or an attempt to hide a mistake.
Any given person should do debate (details below)

So apparantly my opponent fell into the false impression that I was truly going to take this debate seriously. I made it a point in my origional argument that I would just waste the time of the pro side, which in itself proves that, after jokingly running a debate in which the insults of whiner, cheater, liar, and retard have all been thrown around. Not that it wasn't fun or a good show, but my opponent does not realize that there is absolutely no value in this debate, which is especially funny because it is about the value debate inherently provides. Honestly we both had better things to do than debate to no end. At least I do, and I hope you do. If you don't, it must mean that not only are you a lying, cheating retard, but you also have no life. Only kidding, of course, but, but if that is true, maybe debate is good for you, but it is not good for everyone. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "I'm really hungry!"
Any given person should do debate (details below)

The pro side is ignoring my last argument entirely. The "copy & paste" statement refers to your first argument. Look at your source. You copied an pasted the entire source. As for the resolution, you did not specify in the actual resolution who/what is being referred to. It does not matter if you wrote the resolution, you can't discount the vast majority of the world: ANY GIVEN PERSON. Stop cheating by writing nonspecific resolutions, the writing off your opponents as whiners when you try to limit the scope of a pre-written resolution. Let me get this straight. You want to say any given person should do debate, yet we should exclude: 1. anyone who is not a teenager 2. not an American The framework itself shows that the pro side feels cornered, and the only way to win is to twist the resolution out of context entirely At this point, I am getting tired of the Pro side's poor conduct, stating disappointment, and whining. So let's clear this up. The pro side lied about copy/paste. The pro side cheats in changing the focus of debate, mid-round. Finally, relating to my original case, my opponent is clearly mentally retarded, and should clearly not debate, because he cannot do it fairly.
Any given person should do debate (details below)

I'm sorry, I did not know that we would be debating this round by copying and pasting all of our main points without any actual participation on our part. As for the framework of this debate, it has been unfairly established that "any given person will be restricted to an average American teenager who has the time to do debate." This is abusive of the pro team, and does not argue a logical argument. Any teenager who has the time to debate? As a last resort, the pro side could default to say that the only way a teenager could have time would be if they had no other activities, in which case debate is better than doing nothing. This is an unfair stance, and the framework needs to be resolved to "any given person" meaning ANY GIVEN PERSON, not just teenagers. Further, the pro team does not specify whether this means competitive debate - as in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Policy, etc. - or recreational debate - i.e. www.debate.org. Since it is not specified by the resolution, it must be assumed that any form of debate should be taken into consideration. If the pro team wanted to frame the debate around High School competitive debate, they should have written the resolution that way. All of the evidence is framed toward competitive debate, so it does not in any way refute my points.
Any given person should do debate (details below)

I look forward to the rest. Let's begin with point by point refutation. 1. "Debate stems hate" I have three responses to this point. a. My opponent has not brought up evidence to support this point. For him to claim that debate stems hate, he must have some kind of warrant. You can not merely make claims without a person who has studied the subject backing you up. b. How does violence come out in debate? Debate is intellectual and is formed through vocal words or letters (in the case of debate. org), not physical. There is no reason to believe that violent people should not debate. c. Lastly, the majority of average american kids are not violent in such a way that this could even remotely be a problem. My opponent has provided no warrant for a claim that is not even logically based. 2. "People with severe mental disabilities should not debate". I have three responses to this as well. a. Why is that so? You need to provide a reason to believe so. b. This point is not logical. In fact, if someone has mental disabilities, debate would actually be beneficial, because it builds up that person's brain. Again, no reason to believe a pereson with mental disabilities should not debate. c. No evidence, again. If my opponent will refuse to provide any reason to believe his position, he should at least provide backup evidence. d. The majority of average american kids do not have serious mental disabilities. So this point does not apply to the majority of the population. Why does that matter? Because we argue by net benefits, or which contention provides more benefit. If you're talking about people, you have to look at what the majority is. If the majority will receive a benefit from debating, then vote for me. Clearly, my opponent has provided no reason to vote against me since his arguments are not clear, not backed up, and illogical. 3. "Paradox" This point is rather confusing. How is this an argument against my position? What do you mean by the fact that I will never know if you are sincere? I'll go through every sentence here. "Honestly, I shouldn't debate, because I am wasting your time. " On the contrary, you are building up my skills. You have not attacked the benefits of debate which I stated in my first "speech", so that means by debating me you are giving me the benefits of debate. "Debate me, and have me waste your time to prove that debate is not for everyone, or call it off and acknowledge that you were wrong. " I would like to rephrase that. Because I am not wrong. You again have provided no evidence and illogical arguments which do not properly refute my stance. Therefore I am right, and you are wrong. "Prove that debate is not for everyone"-- Restate that. Attempt to prove. You can not prove a falsehood, and you haven't. Until you do, that statement is foolish. Voters, I urge you to vote for me. My opponent has provided illogical arguments that are not backed up with evidence. They also only apply to the minority. That means that the majority of average american kids will get a benefit from debate. Thank you, and I anticipate my opponent's response.
Any given person should do debate (details below)

1. Debate stems hate. People who are prone to violence should not debate, for the sake of the safety of others. 2. People with severe mental disabilities should not debate. 3. Honestly, I should not debate, because I am wasting your time. So I introduce to you a paradox. You have an option. Debate me, and have me waste your time to prove that debate is not for everyone, or call it off and acknowledge that you were wrong. Either way, you will never know if I am being sincere.
Any given person should do debate (details below)

I hope to have a fun and educational debate. The details of the resolution: Any given person will be restricted to an average American teenager who has the time to do debate. That means I'm not saying a person with way too many responsibilities is exempt from this, and we will not bring other countries into this debate. My argument is that debate is beneficial overall and therefore the average American teenager should do it. Students Benefit: · 61% increase in critical thinking skills · 25% improvements in literacy rates · 95-99% college matriculation rates among at risk students · Over 150 colleges and universities actively recruit urban debaters for admission and scholarships · Urban debaters in most cities have high school graduation rates above 90% (national avg. 72%) Teachers Benefit: A school system with roughly 10,000 teachers and a turnover rate of 20% would save approximately $500,000/year by reducing turnover by 1 percentage point. Debate increases teacher retention as they watch students develop critical thinking skills before their eyes. They reconnect to the mission that first attracted them to education. Colleges & Parents Benefit: Only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges. When urban debate leagues informs parents that debaters receive millions in scholarships just for debating, they see new options for their children. More than 150 colleges offer debate scholarships. Universities use urban debaters to diversify their entering classes with promising students from neighborhoods they cannot access normally. School Districts Benefit: Creating positive culture is a key component of building district-wide norms of academic excellence. Reaching just 5% of students with the UDL model has driven schools to add AP courses, upgrade their libraries, and expand their educational objectives for all students. Debate works. It’s why debate was required in every school district for decades. Communities Benefit: High school graduates live longer, have better general health and are less likely than high school dropouts to use publicly financed health insurance programs. If the 18-year-olds who failed to graduate had advanced one grade, it would save nearly $2.3 billion in publicly financed medical care, aggregated over a lifetime. The Nation Benefits: 1.2 million students fail to graduate on time costing the nation more than $312 billion in lost wages, taxes and productivity over their lifetimes. For every city where debate flourishes, their earning potential increases exponentially, saving billions. (1) Sources: www. seattledebate. org/documents/benefitsofdebate. doc
video game violence

"if the kids dont take the responsibilty then they will do it at there own risk." So if a baby doesn't take the responsibility to not swallow something harmful youd say it does it at its own risk? The point I made before is that children simply dont understand the risk, or simply dont believe there to be one. "violent games do not have an effect on children. and if it supposedly does its because the child want s attention and needs the attention." I see absolutely no basis for this argument aside from personal opinion. On the other hand, I can back up my argument with scientific fact. Take, for example, the research done at the Indiana University School of Medicine: http://www.msnbc.msn.com... The students here were given MRIs to see if there was any actual difference between violent and nonviolent video games. Sure enough, there was a notable difference in the emotional arousal levels of those tested. I don't think you can say that the students were altering all altering the same level of brain activity just for a bit of attention. Of course, one might argue that there is simply too much of a difference between Need for Speed and Call of Duty, the two games that were compared in that study. However, let's look at another study, by Ballard and Weist: http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu... In this, Mortal Kombat was used in both test groups; one had blood effects turned on, the other had them off. Even when playing the exact same game, levels of excitement were notably higher simply if there was increased gore. And again, I know many gamers will say that they do not have violent tendencies, nor any inclinations towards criminal behavior. However, consider the study done by Lynch, found in the above link. It was found that "[s]tudents who scored in the top 20% on a trait hostility scale showed much greater increases in physiological response than students scoring in the bottom 20% of the hostility scale. Children who were more hostile also showed much greater response in adrenaline, nor-adrenaline, and testosterone than children who were less hostile after playing a violent video game. These physiological effects are important because these are the same types of physiological reactions bodies have when engaged in a fight." Thus, while many more passive gamers may not experience a significant emotional arousal or increase in violent emotions, those who are naturally more inclined towards violence will have a stronger change in emotional levels.
video game violence

I agree, it would be great if children would take the initiative to play games tailored to their age level. But if even their parents let it slide, what are the chances the kids will take responsibility? Further, how should we expect them to even really comprehend the effect that playing violent video games will have? I know when I was a child, I would love to go over to friends' houses and play violent video games that were not allowed in my house. All I knew was that my parents didn't like them because there was too much blood; I had absolutely no concept of any possible psychological effects that it might have on me, and it would be unrealistic to expect otherwise.