BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Football is to dangerous to be allowed at high schools and colleges.

"You have not denied that football is dangerous, you have agreed you just believe that other sports are more dangerous"I'm guessing you don't understand my argument. I can't simply deny football is dangerous because I'd be lying. So instead I proved it's not as dangerous as other sports. And while you did present the source, all of that was copied and pasted. You could have at least elaborated. Instead, you just copied and pasted the argument. "1) You really shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source."It's more reliable than you think. It's constantly monitored. "Look at your spacing here.... "Leadership, according to this dictionary is "the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs agroup" I'm pretty sure agroup isn't a word."I'll just point out every grammatical and spelling error in your argument then. "fact that their" improper use of there." sprangs" Not an injury"injurys" not a word If you do not speak English, don't bash me about my "spacing" and English when you make more mistakes. My opponent has made false claims again. He just copied and argument from someone else for his argument which is wrong regardless if he posted the source.
Football is to dangerous to be allowed at high schools and colleges.

" Therefore my point is proved that there was not an ambulance present at the time of Chad Stover's death."You're claim about an ambulance not being there was because they're couldn't be one. Not because they didn't want to have one there. You just posted a source that would work against you. Your claim is really irrelevant without a reason to have it."So before you try to say you didn't include something in your argument you may want to go back, and actually read your argument."But your claim was that I was wrong that people who play sports have better health. I never said they had the best health either. They do however, have great health regardless."Although you may gain much popularity from being a football player, are the friends worth walking in with a high potential to get a concussion, and or a brain injury every game?"Let me answer that with another question. Why have a nice car when you have a high potential to get in an automobile accident?"My opponent did not rebuttal my argument against his first argument, so therefore my argument stands against his, and his first argument falls."This made me laugh. Do you know what a rebuttal is? I just refuted your last argument, and actually wether you know it or not, I am refuting your argument RIGHT NOW. So your claim "My argument falls" is not true, but instead a fallacy."Here my opponent had incorrect grammar/spelling -""the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs agroup""How so?To state right now, my opponent is making many fallacies. I have pointed out many of them in my previous and current rebuttal.
Football is to dangerous to be allowed at high schools and colleges.

It's obvious that you did not subscribe to the full addition of Time Magazine. Please read the following article where it states specifically says "Coaches and players had to wait several minutes for an ambulance to arrive. No one is sure if Stover's condition would be any better if medics were on scene when the teen collapsed. The Tipton R-VI Schools superintendent, Scott Jarvis, said the wait was excruciating. "When you're in a situation like that, it feels like hours but it had only been a couple of minutes," he said. An ambulance was not required to be present at the game, according to Missouri State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA). "Ambulances, trainers, and medical personnel are recommendations to have on site, but the only requirement is that schools have an emergency policy put in place," MSHSAA communications director Jason West said."(1) Therefore my point is proved that there was not an ambulance present at the time of Chad Stover's death. Quoting your exact words you said, "People who play sports have better health." So before you try to say you didn't include something in your argument you may want to go back, and actually read your argument. Now I would like to leave you with a final question. Although you may gain much popularity from being a football player, are the friends worth walking in with a high potential to get a concussion, and or a brain injury every game? In my argument I said exactly, "football is number one in must dangerous sports." So I don't know how you got the idea that it is one of the most dangerous, because it exactly says "football is number one in most dangerous sports.(2) My opponent did not rebuttal my argument against his first argument, so therefore my argument stands against his, and his first argument falls. Here my opponent had incorrect grammar/spelling -""the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs agroup"" Resources: 1) http://www.abc17news.com... 2) http://www.concussiontreatment.com......
Football is to dangerous to be allowed at high schools and colleges.

"Wouldn't you agree that their are other ways to be in a leadership position without being an athlete. Their are so many leadership training and activities. And really unless you are the quarterback, or the coach, are you really in a leadership role being the kicker. Think about, your coach says, "Okay, I want you to go out and kick a 40-yard field goal." How are you in a leadership position there. You are being lead, not being a leader. Therefore your argument is false." Actually, no it is not false just because you feel like it's false and you can't prove it's false. All you did was state a scenario without stating what leadership is. That is a logical fallacy. Or, faulty logic.Leadership, according to this dictionary is "the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs agroup"[http://dictionary.reference.com...]"So you are telling me that football players have better health then those that don't play sports."Also false? Where in my argument did I say football players have better health? ""being a jock makes you stupid" is an irrelevant argument"If you read my argument, you would know it was related to academics and the benefits of high school football. So no, it was not irrelevant."First when it comes to the Chad Stover story, if you go and subscribe to the full Time Magazine article, it says specifically in there that there was not an athletic trainer nor ambulance present when this occurred."I went to the link, and yet again no evidence there wasn't an ambulance. I searched and I read it over but there was nothing. "Now I would like you to provide you with an exact quote from the official Concussion Treatment Website : "Football is the most common sport with concussion risk for males"For MALES maybe. But abroad? Women's ice hockey. Very selective sources. Oh and it says a RISK. So yet again, no plausible proof that football is so dangerous it should be done away with. Also, the source claims that 30% experience concussions in College. While the number seems high, when it comes to the the THOUSANDS of people that go to colleges across the USA the numbers really start to shrink." football is number one in most dangerous sports. (3) Therefore that argument is also false, therefore can not be taken into consideration in today's debate."Oh yes ONE of the most dangerous. It's the most dangerous, it's just ONE. So no, it's not false. Not to also mention, it's an opinion. It's not a fact, that would make your statement false due to lack of facts.My opponent also made multiple grammatical errors and spelling errors in his argument.Now my opponent multiple times claims that concussions in football should make it a reason for it to be banned. However, building off of the women's ice hockey I can list more sports that have more concussion rates than football. One, women's ice hockey.Men's Ice hockey and Men's soccer both have more concussion rates than football.[http://en.wikipedia.org...]Professional Rugby can have up tp 3 concussions per 1000 hours. So why isn't that banned? [http://www.rfu.com...]
Football is to dangerous to be allowed at high schools and colleges.

First I would like to rebuttal my opponents arguments and then I will come back and build my case. I think that it is great that students are able to get scholarships for sports that they play in high school, but there are also more ways to get scholarships such as academics. If we look at the article posted below on hooprecruiter.com more often academic scholarships offer more money that that of athletic scholarships. So you don't have to be on a sports team to get scholarships. Also a lot of other things look good on scholarships like volunteering, and being a good students (ACT/SAT score, and your GPA). Wouldn't you agree that their are other ways to be in a leadership position without being an athlete. Their are so many leadership training and activities. And really unless you are the quarterback, or the coach, are you really in a leadership role being the kicker. Think about, your coach says, "Okay, I want you to go out and kick a 40-yard field goal." How are you in a leadership position there. You are being lead, not being a leader. Therefore your argument is false. So you are telling me that football players have better health then those that don't play sports. Obviously in the case of Chad Stover, Jevon Belcher, those are just two examples where your third argument is not true. Therefore that argument is irrelevant. I think your last point about "being a jock makes you stupid" is an irrelevant argument. Because you are trying to fall into stereotypes and there are no facts behind that argument. Now I would like to go back and build my own case. First when it comes to the Chad Stover story, if you go and subscribe to the full Time Magazine article, it says specifically in there that there was not an athletic trainer nor ambulance present when this occurred. (1) Now I would like you to provide you with an exact quote from the official Concussion Treatment Website : "Football is the most common sport with concussion risk for males (75% chance for concussion)" (2) Lastly I would like to argument your comment: "While it is dangerous, it is required the players are protected. There are more dangerous sports than American football." According to "Total Pro- Sports Website" football is number one in most dangerous sports. (3) Therefore that argument is also false, therefore can not be taken into consideration in today's debate. 1)http://time.com... 2) http://www.concussiontreatment.com... 3)http://www.totalprosports.com...
Football is to dangerous to be allowed at high schools and colleges.

I hold the stance it isn't too dangerous. I will now present my argument"According to CBS news, Tipton football player Chad Stover died after receiving a major brain injury to the head during the football game, on a Friday night. There was not an ambulance or even a sports trainer at the field when this game was occurring in 2013 at Smith-Cotton High School"I looked all over the Internet, and there is NO claim there wasn't an ambulance or sports trainer. That argument is false unless you can prove otherwise."Football is the most known sport when it comes to the athletes receiving concussions"While it is notorious for having high concussions, it's not the highest. Believe it or not...Women's Ice Hockey has the MOST concussions. The claim "football has the most concussions" is false. [1]"The entire point of this game is to tackle the other team, and stop them from scoring touchdowns. That just sounds dangerous in itself."While it is dangerous, it is required the players are protected. There are more dangerous sports than American football.I'll present my argument nowi. Scholarships for college while playing in high schoolCollege is VERY expensive. $29,400 was given to 7/10 college Seniors at one time for student loans and through 2008 and 2012 it increased [2]. Scholarships are important and football is one easy way to get extra money for college. It also looks great when applying to college for extra curricular activities and if you want to play college football.ii. Skills you developLeadership is one big benefit. It's important to be a good leader in society, often you'll be better with people. You'll also have some rivalry, which is also good. You have to be competitive in this big world.iii.HealthPeople who play sports have better health. It's true! Older people who played sports had less brain shrinkage [3]It also develops healthier relationships. It allows you to be with people who share a common interest in athletics and you can make a lot of friends.There's a myth about being a jock makes you "stupid". This is also very false. Being sports forces you to balance time between homework and sports. Organization is important. [4][1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://projectonstudentdebt.org...[3] http://www.livestrong.com...[4] http://www.pamf.org...
Football is to dangerous to be allowed at high schools and colleges.

According to CBS news, Tipton football player Chad Stover died after receiving a major brain injury to the head during the football game, on a Friday night. There was not an ambulance or even a sports trainer at the field when this game was occurring in 2013 at Smith-Cotton High School. This news story spilt quickly and spread everywhere, it went onto national TV, news channels, and ESPN. Football is the most known sport when it comes to the athletes receiving concussions. The entire point of this game is to tackle the other team, and stop them from scoring touchdowns. That just sounds dangerous in itself. We should not encourage students to play a sport that leads to so much injury and death and play it off as a form of entertainment!
Taxation on cigarettes should be substantially increased.

Observations1. I did not defend his rebuttals because that is for the fourth round, not the third2. Because we agree each on our framework, there is no need to write anything else.Defense1. I am not defending his case. That argument was about that the government wants to earn the money for the better economy. However no one will buy those cigarettes. This is not your case but mine because the government wants people to buy these cigarettes when our team doesn't want us to. Pro's team wants the cigarettes bought because the government want them to be bought. That was why our team's argument was that they cannot be bought.Harms to BuisnessI know that the government does not get this money. However the overall GDP will go up, that is the concern. That is why your government wants these taxes for the higher GDP, when they cannot be bought. They get the taxes. They use it to make other things. However when you say harms to business, this rebuts to your argument because that your argument was about smoking ban from increasing taxes, however if you do this, you harm businesses. You rebutted your own arguments.Economic DetrimentThat is why, we should not increase taxes because the people will buy more of it. Also like Pro said that thi tax is to help these citizens for health. However then there will be an economic problem. This shows that you are saying it is beneficial for your health. This however rebuts with your point which was about the smoking ban too. If you say that the economy is bad, that is rebutting your own self. You just rebutted your own self.2. We know that not all people will stop smoking. It will reduce smoking. However that is not the main point of this debate. Even if we raise taxes, no one will buy them. There will be no effect. Therefore there is no reason to raise taxes because the effect is the same.Secondly my point was that we don't need to tax smoking. Pro failed to know my argument3. Same as first defense.PointsMy opponent has failed to explain my questions.My first question was that why do we need to tax smoking. Instead he does not say why we need to tax smoking.My second question was that the government wants more money. This is true because the government wants more of a better economy to get more income.ConclusionWhat Con succeeded to do. ArgumentsRebuttalsWhat Pro has mistakenMy questionsMy arguments I did not concede. I just matched the structure.There is no reason to vote for Pro, so vote for Con. Thank you.
Taxation on cigarettes should be substantially increased.

FrameworkI agree, I accept with Pro's framework and continue to value societal welfare. Rebuttals1. Pro's first argument was about the role of the government.I have questions for my opponent.1. Why do we need to tax smoking then?2. If the government does this, won't the cigarettes not get bought because of high prices?3. At last, if we have taxes, this does not help the citizens.Pro has failed to say these points in his argument. My first point is that, why do we have to tax smoking, not other things? Pro just said, " Thus the role of the government is sufficient to resort to means of prevention of cigarettes." Pro failed to explain why needed to use cigarettes and also why not something else.Second of all, Pro fails to explain that if we raise taxes of the cigarettes, there will be much of a decreased amount of cigarette smokers. That is not what the government wants and why they are raising these taxes.Third of all, if we have more taxes, then this is bad for the citizens. They cannot buy these expensive things. The economy will get worse of we increase the tax of cigarettes. Many workers depend on the tobacco, however if the government will raise taxes and no one will buy these. There are about 800,000 people int he US who work in tobacco fields, and they will be in poverty with no money from their one depended thing. Tobacco. 2. Pro's second argument is about the Health DeterminantsOkay, first of all, this is basically my first argument of the smoking ban. However we said it in different perspectives. Pro is saying that if we raise the taxes, no one will buy these cigarettes. However the government does not want to do it in this way. The government wants to do this because they want to get more money. That is why Pro's argument is wrong because the government wants to get more money, however our argument is that if we raise taxes, no one will buy them.3. Higher Tax Deterrence Okay, this was Pro's third argument. As I said in my second rebuttal, the government wants to earn money, that is why they are raising taxes. It is not about the citizens care. They will probably just make signs. Also the government does not care if you are healthy or not or if you should not smoke. They want to raise the economy by doing this act, however then no one will buy them. There is no reason to increase taxes because then no one will buy them.4. RevenueAs I said in my third and second rebuttal. Everyone wouldn't quit smoking. However the government wants to increase taxes because they want to get the economy better, not the citizens health.For these reasons, vote for Con.7. http://tinyurl.com...8. http://tinyurl.com...
Taxation on cigarettes should be substantially increased.

**As an aside, am actually a male... ;P** FrameworkMy opponent accepts my framework, and as such, we should follow and continue to value societal welfare.Rebuttals:Smoking Ban:My opponent essentially says a smoking ban is preferrable to raising taxes. Essentially, he points out all of the harms. I agree that all of these harms exist, and even mentioned most of them in my first round. My opponent is doing little more than assisting my case when he points these out. However, he gives no logical reason as to why a smoking ban is preferrable to increasing taxes. While it could obliterate smoking completely, there are quite a few harms I'd like to point out. However, my opponent never really explains this argument and why it is preferrable to maximize societal welfare.Harms to BusinessesThe lack of revenue from sales and production tax is a very important and relevant detriment to smoking bans. Instantaneously, the government doesn't receive the tax revenue from the millions who smoke. This would obviously be a detriment. It's an explicit harm to businesses. [1] However, with increasing taxation, they get *more* revenue from the people who continue smoking while also getting the benefit of those who choose to quit smoking because of high costs.Economic DetrimentThere's also demonstrable economic harms to smoking bans, which is why the corporations should be able to determine smoking policies themselves, as to fit with their economic stability. [2]Essentially, this argument is baseless, and hinges only on the fact (as I've also presented) that smoking is harmful. This doesn't necessitate a smoking ban, but rather an increase in taxation on the products which, by smoking, cause these detriments.No Reason:My opponent has a severe misinterpretation of the health effects in relation to consumption. He assumes that just because health effects are bad, people won't smoke. This is entirely and demonstrably false. Cross-apply my evidence from the CDC, which noted "Nearly 18 of every 100 U.S. adults aged 18 years or older (17.8%) currently smoke cigarettes. This means an estimated 42.1 million adults in the United States currently smoke cigarettes." [3] This empirically proves that knowledge about harms =/= no smoking. The only effective way to prevent smoking without harms (as I've shown) is through increased taxation. We need bad things to be more expensive to increase revenue for those who don't mind the cost, and also to decrease the smoking population. Cigarettes are Bad:This was already addressed in his first contention. We should make taxes for bad things higher to prevent increased use, and create a regressive trend of smoking.ConclusionAgain, the misinterpretation here is that knowledge = lack of consumption. This has been shown false, and effectively refuted. Thusly, we choose the option that maximizes societal welfare; increased taxation on cigarettes.Sources:[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[2] http://fee.org...[3] http://www.cdc.gov...
Taxation on cigarettes should be substantially increased.

**This debate should only be open to fire_wings**Full Resolution: Taxation on cigarettes should be substantially increased.Rules:No trollingNo kritiksNo semanticsNo forfeitsMaintain a civil and decorous atmosphereAny citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debateNo new arguments in the final roundThe BoP is sharedFailure to comply to these stipulations or round structure renders an automatic lossRound Structure:Round 1:Pro - RulesCon - AcceptanceRound 2:Pro - Opening ArgumentsCon - Opening ArgumentsRound 3:Pro - RebuttalsCon - RebuttalsRound 4:Pro - Defense & RebuttalsCon - Defense & RebuttalsClarifications:As some words in the resolution may be open to obscurity, I'll clarify and define those here, so they don't become an issue in the actual debate.Taxation: this refers to the sales tax placed upon cigarettes.Substantially: this refers to a meaningful and considerable degree, normally quite a large amount. Essentially, this word isn't *that* important. The key thing is to recognize the sales tax *will* be increased.
Trump isn't the worst president ever.

Dishonesty - Sure, But not as bad as Nixon or Clinton who lied under oath to the whole nation. Crudeness - Sure, But not as bad as Andrew Jackson(a$$) and LBJ (profanely burping, Farting, And scratching his crotch) Corruption - Sure, But not as bad as Warren G. Harding or Herbert Hoover. Stupidity - Sure, But not as bad as Andrew Jackson, George Bush, And Herbert Hoover. Look, I've been generous in assuming that every one of these accusations is correct. But then again, Trump is not the worst president in any of these categoreis.