BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video Games Cannot Be Blamed For 'Corrupting' Children.

No, my argument is that the video game industry cannot be blamed for children playing games that are not meant for them. At no point have I even tried to say games don't cause violence. I am stating that games get too much stick for things that are the fault of the people that play them even though they aren't supposed to. I am fully aware that, if viewed by the wrong audience, games cause harm, and I have said nothing against that. My point is that people are blaming the industry as a whole, when the fault lies with the people that ignore guidelines that are there for the sole purpose of making sure things like this do not happen. Also this is my first debate, throw me a bone here.
Jonathan Papelbon is the best closer in the game today

who cares what he does against the red sox, that is the only team he fails against becuase they see him the most out of any other team in the league. Let's not forget i'm pretty sure mr.paplebon has had his fair struggles against the yankees the past couple of years also. Paplebon is too young to consider him the best closer, he has not proven that he can be consistent for several seasons. In the future yes he may be, but not right now.
Jonathan Papelbon is the best closer in the game today

Thegreatdebator, I'd like to cite a quote from your previous argument: "Mo has all the experience and poise to pitch at any moment in any situation and assure ur team a win." Let's take a look back three years ago, at the 2004 ALCS. Mariano Rivera at the mound, three outs away from securing the Yankees a spot in the 101st World Series. Three nights and four improbable wins later, it was not the Yankees, but the Red Sox, who were representing the American League in the World Series. If "Mo" could've kept stride on the mound and made three simple outs, a short, positive page could've been added to his history book. Instead, he is loved by Red Sox fans everywhere. Let's take a look at Rivera's other mishaps against Boston: In 2004, prior to the World Series, hours after a brawl broke up, he gave up a walk-off home run to Bill Mueller at Fenway. He blew his first two saves of the 2005 season against the BoSox, and posts a career 8.10 ERA against them. Papelbon cleary came off with the better '07 season, comparing his 30 saves to Jonathan's 37. While Rivera may be considered the best closer of all time, he is well past his prime, and Papelbon is and will be the new face of the closing pitcher for years to come.
Jonathan Papelbon is the best closer in the game today

Great closers in the game of baseball: Mariano Rivera, Dennis Eckersley, Rich "Goose" Gossage, Willie Hernandez, and Rollie Fingers. All are past their prime, and all are retired with the exception of Rivera, and at age 38 his years are numbered. But a new face looks to emerge out of the world of closing pitchers: Jonathan Papelbon. In fact, he's already emerged. Just two full seasons into his career, Papelbon has made 118 appearances, 81 of those being save situations, closing out 72 of them. 2006 he sported one of the most dominant seasons by a rookie reliever, saving 35 games, striking out 75 batters in 68 innings, and holding opposing batters to a .167 batting average. His following season looked to be even better, as he won the "DHL Major League Baseball Player of the Year Award", and was selected to the All-star team for the second time. He also became a World Series Champion at age of 26, throwing the final pitches in both the 2007 ALCS and World Series; His future looks to be a bright one.
Jonathan Papelbon is the best closer in the game today

gagne had over 70 consecutive saves, that is why he was the best closer in the game. As for paplebon those 4 teams he blew saves against the Rays, Athletics, Oriels, and Blue Jays, are all horrible teams. Paplebon is not a fun loving guy, becuase i despise him and think he is too cocky. He is not the greatest closer in the game right now because mo is still pitching. Mariano Rivera is the best closer of all-time and is the best closer right now. Hands down.
Jonathan Papelbon is the best closer in the game today

"Let's not forget i'm pretty sure mr.paplebon has had his fair struggles against the yankees the past couple of years also." Off of recent memory, Papelbon neglected to blow a save last year against New York, with his mere four blown saves coming against Tampa Bay, Oakland, Baltimore, and Toronto. If he did indeed blow a save against the Yankees, it would be memorable, as Rivera's were against the Red Sox. Games four and five of the AlCS will go down in history. Papelbon is not too young to be considered the best closer in the game today. He is 27 years old, and, four years ago, Eric Gagne was considered to be the best closer in the game, at the same age of 27. A closer to young to take on this role is Joba Chamberlain, who, although, is a great young pitcher, is five years younger than Papelbon. Papelbon is the perfect mixture of a power pitcher and a lighthearted, fun-loving guy, and is the best closing pitcher in the game today.
eating meat is not immoral

This is the final round, so I'll try to keep this more of a summary than anything else. con hasn't shown that it is inherently immoral to eat meat. at best he has given some examples of situatins here it is immoral.I have not given situations, but REALITIES of what meat-eating's end result is. Environmental destruction, pain and suffering to the animals themselves, and that where a choice exists whether or not to indulge in the consumption of meat, it is clearly more moral not to indulge.if i am growing a cow on a farm, there's no serious way i could be considdred to be hindering third world people from the meals they could be eating. supporting mega farms and a mega meat industry might be viewed as bad, you could argue, but to grow local or eat meat in ways that are eco friendly, could not be considered bad.I do not dispute that there are more moral ways to grow and consume meat than others, but it is almost ALWAYS a less moral choice than not eating it at all. Perhaps, if I were to really stretch, I could find an isolated case or two where meat were at least the lesser of available evils (someone with a rare disease who can't process plant protein, place where in limited cases only meat is available,) but the issue with those scenarios is that the element of choice has been removed. So long as eating meat is a choice, as it is for the vast majority of us, it is the less moral choice. Therefore, eating meat is Immoral.con lumps eatin meat with things like violence, cannibalism etc. the problem is that those are not things we do by design of our very body etc. they are things that can be done, sure. but it's written in our body, by virtue of us being omnivores, by us having those cannine teeth etc. that we are meat eaters. we have a choice in these, and they are wrong. we have a choice with meat, but that is not necessarily wrong.I would argue that we are very well built to commit acts of violence, from our ability to bite painfully (again, the canines) to our advanced brains that allow us to develop such advanced methods of killing. What is "natural" is rarely a good argument for what is moral, and there is no finer example of this dichotemy than in the consumption of meat.In conclusion, P1: Eating meat, for humans, is a choice.P2: Eating meat carries with it many immoral burdens, from the neccesity of inflicting harm on other living things to the unsustainability it represents.It is thus resolved that to eat meat is Immoral.Best of luck to Dairygirl in the voting, I look forward to reading comments.(and off the record:) if I should lose, I will enact my revenge by eating Dairygirl, who is meat, and therefore has proven it is moral for me to do so. Thanks for reading!
eating meat is not immoral

con hasn't shown that it is inherently immoral to eat meat. at best he has given some examples of situatins here it is immoral. if i am growing a cow on a farm, there's no serious way i could be considdred to be hindering third world people from the meals they could be eating. supporting mega farms and a mega meat industry might be viewed as bad, you could argue, but to grow local or eat meat in ways that are eco friendly, could not be considered bad. con lumps eatin meat with things like violence, cannibalism etc. the problem is that those are not things we do by design of our very body etc. they are things that can be done, sure. but it's written in our body, by virtue of us being omnivores, by us having those cannine teeth etc. that we are meat eaters. we have a choice in these, and they are wrong. we have a choice with meat, but that is not necessarily wrong.
eating meat is not immoral

I will fully concede the point that while we may be evolutionarily driven to eat more meat than we should, that yes, it is technically possible we could eat healthier amounts of meat, and thus I will no longer pursue point 4. I will not however, give your second rebuttal as much credence. While it may not be strictly immoral to use *some* land inefficiently to produce what are essentially luxury foods, there is not in place currently any moral way to do so. As the world stands, wealthy countries like mine (the US) produce many many times more meat than underdeveloped nations. Every hamburger I eat represent literally dozens of meals people who are starving elsewhere could be eating. The amount of Methane we produce in raising cattle is globally destructive. The closer I am bringing grazing land to being unfarmable for decades is another global impact. No, we don't have to use land for the *most* efficient crops, but meat is massively destructive environmentally and SO imbalanced against other crops in terms of nutritional yield (you have to literally expend/waste food to even get meat) there really isn't any defense or justification for it morally. To your hurting rebuttal, I again state what I stated about choice: It is the nature of animals (which we are one of) to hurt and kill to eat meat. The difference between us and those other animals is that WE have a choice about it, a choice we could exercise for the better, yet a choice we ignore because YUM MEAT IS TASTY! Humans have risen above their base instincts in acknowledging that certain things such as violence, cannibalism, greed and many other behaviors while natural, are not moral, eating meat should be one of these things. Therefore, while conceding my fourth argument, I have defended the other two you have chosen to address, and extend all the others. Over to you!
eating meat is not immoral

so can we agree that maybe eating too much meat is not a good idea? that doesn't mean i concede, just that i am accommodating. and curious how far you take the 'we don't need to eat it as much' argument. there are always more efficient methods of producing food, does that mean we should always focus on those? even within the vegetarian community, there are more and less efficient food sources. which source of food we choose can only be considered wrong by a matter of degree, not inherently. again i think all we could conclude is we shouldn't focus too much on the inefficient stuff, but can't say eating meat is immoral based on this. eating too much meat is bad for you. in moderation it is not bad for you, and in fact is surely good for you. that is why we are designed to eat it. while hurting animals become an issue in terms of excessively hurting them, we are designed by nature to kill and eat animals. this requires the animals to be hurt. it would make more sense then to not use this reason to call eating meat immoral.
eating meat is not immoral

My thanks to Dairygirl for posting this debate. The reality is this: I eat meat, but for a number of different considerations I am not proud that I do so. 1. Humans are omnivorous, not true carnivores. 2. Humans moreso than any other animal have true choice about what we eat, from our ability to shape the environment to support any plant or animal life, to our knowledge of nutrition that has allowed to isolate what components truly make up a healthy diet, we have less need to eat meat than any other omnivore or carnivore on the planet. To neglect this true choice is indisputably immoral. 3. Meat is wasteful. The amount of crop land it takes to feed a herd of cattle is heinous compared to how that land could be used to grow grains that would feed many more people. Even growing protein-rich crops like Tofu, Quinoia, and Saytan yields enough food to feed more people way longer. 4. Meat is self-destructive. While in very small quantities, meat can be healthy, meat has a high potential to raise cholesterol and contribute to obesity. The addictive nature of meat makes overindulgence in it to be more likely than many other foods. 5. Meat is hurtful. It is a basic reality that in order to eat meat we must harm other creatures. Even early man was not comfortable with this fact and constructed ritual to excuse or be forgiven for the act of taking life to sustain their own. Modern man no longer needs meat to lead healthy, long lives, and thus needn't burden himself with the guilt and moral discomfort for any reason than the sheer pleasure of eating meat. Harming others for ones own pleasure is the definition of immorality. For all these reasons, I urge readers to vote CON. Over to you, PRO!
Any law that contradicts the Consitution is not legal

Amendment: a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation http://oxforddictionaries.com...Think logically now, if you can amend it, you really could alter it any you wished, no?The truth is my opponent has not offered A SINGLE CONTENTION WHATSOEVER to prove the supremacy of the Constitution.Additionally they failed to refute why, if disobeying it would be a better form of leadership for a government at a certain time in that making a non-Constitutional law would better maintain harmony and well-being in their society then why not?My opponent has neither rebutted my point (okay he tried by saying "The Constitution is Supreme") and has failed to assert a single piece of evidence to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution.
Any law that contradicts the Consitution is not legal

Thank you for your response, RationalMadman. I'd like to explain that your semantic attack at my definition of legal is incorrect. The Constitution is the only law in the U.S.A. which claims to be supreme, so it trumps all other laws. If there were one other law which claimed to be supreme and ran contrary to the Constitution, then I would have to argue why one is legal and one is not. But that isn't the case, so my point still stands: Any law that runs contrary to the Constitution is not legal. My argument is not in conflict with the definition of legal, and thus there is no irony. I contend that your semantic attack was actually the crux of your argument, so there is no need for me to present a rebuttal to what you referred to as your 'real debate.' I eagerly await your next response.
Any law that contradicts the Consitution is not legal

Firstly I would wish to poke a semantic attack at your definition of legal. You see if you were to define legal as 'required by law' then of course all laws are legal just as much as you require yourself... Quite ironic really.Anyway onto my real debate...The Constitution can be considered to be the bible of a Christian's life. It is a god guideline and has many sound principles but sometimes they must be 'bent' or shaped to fit the society with which a government is faced. Any constitutional 'rule' is not definitely the most advisable in ALL situations a government is faced with. Sometimes the government must act in shocking ways for long-term benefits.
Any law that contradicts the Consitution is not legal

I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to join this debate. Legal: Required by law. Supreme: Superior to all others. Pursuance: The carrying out of a plan or action. Any law that contradicts the Constitution is not legal because the Constitution implies as much by claiming to be the Supreme Law of the Land: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" [1] [1] http://www.archives.gov...
Fair Taxs

My observations have stayed throughout the round: 1) My opponent plagiarized his arguments. 2) My opponent argued for both sides in his first round. 3) My opponent consistently dropped all of his points. 4) No actual rebuttals were made regarding the topic of today's debate: The FairTax. 5) My opponent switched from the FairTax to the Flat Tax. 6) My opponent does not discern the difference between the Fair and Flat taxes. Extend all of my points into the third round and to the end of the debate. I must urge an affirmative ballot in today's debate for the reasons of: 1) The Fair Tax will work to repatriate American businesses. 2) The Fair Tax will increase transparency. I must urge a negative ballot, and I thank everyone.
Fair Taxs

If my opponent has common sense he would reconizged that this case is about taxes. It does not matter whether it is about Flat or Fair tax. Its mainly about taxes. Secondly, I have rebuttled my oppoenents argument, but just in a proffessional and manly manner. So in respose to my opponent, I would say that his ragument is the same from all 2012 GOP Presidential Candidates. Every G.O.P. Politican who has brought up taxes have proposed the argument muy opponent did/has. In conclusion, I would hope that I recieve a "YEA" vote, because I am very new at this and intend to build up on my mistakes made on previous arguments.
Fair Taxs

I offer a few observations: 1. My opponent plagiarized the entirety of his case. 2. My opponent is arguing for both sides. 3. My opponent is talking about the Flat Tax, yet the debate is about the FairTax. 4. No rebuttals we're made. Extend all of my arguments into Round 3. My Flat Tax Rebuttal: My opponent has voiced that a Flat Tax would allow millionaires to become exempt from paying taxes. However, this couldn't be farther from the truth. With a Flat Tax, everyone pays a 17%, or in some cases 20%, tax on all income, regardless of what level their income is. The super wealthy would be unable to escape this tax or become exempt for the simple reason that is it a straight 17% tax levied regardless, no loopholes, no deductions. As a moderate who has looked into the GOP contenders for the 2012 nomination, I don't believe that they are "selfish", rather, they are working toward a better future, using policies they believe will better the nation. Let me explain their rationale for lowering taxes on the rich: In order to see strong amounts of economic growth, businesses must have access to start-up capital and the banking system must have considerable amounts of capital. To examine this, we have to see where exactly all the capital for new business comes from. Who puts money into the bank and invests? The poor? No, the poor are lacking money for even basic necessities and won't invest heavily into the banks. The middle class? To some extent, yes. But only a small amount is invested. The rich? Yes, the rich, having considerable amounts of money put millions into the banks, allowing businesses to have easier access to capital and stronger interest rates. That is their policy, they believe it's good economics. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but their tax policies are definitely not based on "selfishness".
Fair Taxs

The problem with supporting a flat tax is it would allow millionaires and billionaires to be exempt from paying more in taxes. As it is Democrats and Republicans in Washington are split on this issue. The other problem is that the flat tax would lead to more coruption in the Wallstreet coropration beacuse the rich will start to take advantage of the flat tax. Now I have listened to all of the 2012 GOP Contenders and have reach the conclusion that all of them are selfish and believe that we should treat the rich as if they were the middle class. That to me is unacceptable.
Fair Taxs

I will be arguing the benefits of the FairTax, as presented by FairTax. org and Representative John Linder of the United States Congress. Contention 1: The FairTax will work to repatriate American businesses. The United States of America has damaged the expansion opportunities of businesses in the United States. For decades, we have held a 35% corporate income, 2nd only to that of Japan. The simple fact of the matter is, we cannot be a pro- business nation with an outrageously high corporate income tax. Our corporate income tax has unfortunately driven many corporations to outsource crucial manufacturing sectors, taking thousands of jobs from the economy and removing federal revenue. It's time that the United States adopts a more pro-business tax policy. The solution lies in the FairTax. The FairTax would remove all existing corporate income taxes, allowing businesses to return to the United States of America. It is internationally recognized that the United States has some of the most productive workers in the world and corporate executives realize this. It is time to bring American businesses back to American shores, and that is exactly what the FairTax will do. Contention 2: The FairTax will increase transparency. The United States of America has long been a nation that enjoys being "short and sweet". Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address only contained 272 words, the Constitution, only 4258 words, but the tax code of our nation contains in excess more than 9,000,000 words. The core of this debate revolves the more desirable tax code. Transparency in taxation is a fundamental characteristic of any tax code and my opponent must prove our current tax code is just as transparent as the FairTax. The FairTax Act, as introduced by Rep. John Linder, is only 132 pages long, short enough for any American to read. The current code is more than 60,000 pages long and is quite complex. By transitioning to the FairTax, our nation's tax code will become more transparent and understandable to the everyday American citizen. Contention 3: The FairTax will remove unnecessary compliance costs of the current tax code. According to John Linder of Georgia, the citizens of the United States of America spend in excess of 200 billion USD per year to simply comply with current tax code regulations. This cost is made up of hiring tax attourneys, buying applications to do your taxes for you, and the like. These compliance costs could be cut down considerably by enacting the FairTax. The FairTax return form is a single sheet instead of the complex assortment of papers of our current system. In conclusion, because the FairTax will work to repatriate American businesses, and because the FairTax will increase taxation transparency, and because the FairTax removes unnecessary compliance costs, I must affirm the FairTax.
The 49ers/Seahawks rivalry is/will be one of the biggest in the history of the NFL

Thank you Dashy654 for your response, and good luck to you in the voting process. My opponent states that the current season is what matters. Even then, the season hasn't started yet so we don't know how good both teams will be. Also, just because analysts have picked both teams to contend for the Super Bowl does not mean that they will actually contend. Analysts have flaws themselves and don't actually know if they will contend. My opponent also states that since both teams play in the same division, and since both meeting could be on national television, and that they could meet again in the playoffs, this builds up the matchup. It is way too early to look ahead to future meetings, and this will not be a rivalry until both teams prove that they can have success this season and in the future.