BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fans of Football Teams in Eng. and Wales should be able to oust owners

It is true that SISU saved us from administration in 2008, but if we had known what SISU would do to the club I'm sure we would have all prefered administration that year. [1] When they bought us we were "20 million in debt, a reasonably stable championship team and were averaging 17.4 thousand in attendance at home, 7 years later that debt has increased to "60 million, we are battling for survival in League 1 and are barely getting 8,000 at home. The majority being due to SISU and their handling of the rent crisis. [2] Yes fans could exploit it, but what would be the use in kicking out a new owner without giving them a reasonable chance to do anything. This would only give the club a bad reputation among potential owners and put them off a potential purchase. For someone as crucial as an owner I'm sure they would have to do something really bad to annoy the fans enough to warrant being ousted. Coventry were forced to move 35 miles away to Northampton by SISU, despite opposition from the start by practically everyone in the club, league, FA and city. As for the reference to Prescot, yes it was a very poor decision that shouldn't have happened, however he was not a part of the club and was an external factor. Many football owners are good, I agree, but you look at how many ex-premiership clubs are in the lower leagues, Coventry, Portsmouth, Sheffield United, Blackpool, Preston. Many of these were top premiership clubs hindered by mismanagement and financial woes, especially Pompey and Coventry. All have big enough potential fan bases to support a premiership team, but the people at the top let the clubs down. [3] Yes, and it is a decision not to be taken lightly, and I would hope if something like what I'm suggesting were to ever be put in place it would only be used in dire circumstances (e.g. Coventry and Pompey) and not taken lightly. Its like that old saying, desperate times call for desperate measures. Sorry about the timing thingy, this was my first debate, so I'm still getting used to the layout and setup, anyway I think this is my last entry, so thank you for debating with me :) Sources: [1] http://fsf.org.uk... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Fans of Football Teams in Eng. and Wales should be able to oust owners

That consolidates my proposal. The board is voted by fans [1] and since it would be more powerful people (some fans themselves) SISU (or equivalent) - would be ousted with no argument. SISU saved Coventry with 20 minutes to spare [2]. Fans could exploit it so they are saved from administration and then immediately oust they're saviours. With relocation, I feel your pain. I support Barnet F.C. who have also been relocated, but surely, if Coventry fans can oust SISU to keep playing where they want Barnet fans should be able to oust John Prescott. I wish! Your idea is not regulated enough, in fact, I'd argue it is hypocritical to try and use such an unruly solution but I'm not because SISU really do go beyond definition. But not all owners of football clubs are SISU [3] :D. Just because the fans are unhappy with the owner it does not provide a reason for immediate ousting. Just look at Charlton Athletic [4]. By the way, can we finish this debate in BST not Weekend Standard Time. We both live in the UK (unless something worrying has happened to Cardiff) so it should not be difficult. Sources: 1. My round 1 post. 2. http://en.m.wikipedia.org.... 3. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (the sources listed on this article, not the article its self) 4. http://www1.skysports.com... (as of April 11th)
Fans of Football Teams in Eng. and Wales should be able to oust owners

Granted it would have to be a vary large number of the fans relative to the size of the club. However my club, Coventry, have been calling for SISU to go since we were a Mid-Table Championship side, now we are a barely surviving League 1 Team. This was largely due to SISU bleeding us dry and putting us over 60 million pounds in debt. If we had had the power to kick them out we may have at leased bounced back to the championship provided we had decent owners after SISU. We would have certainly avoided having to play in Northampton for over a year. At the end of the day the fans are who matter in a football club, they are the backbone, cheese off the fans and your administration becomes unsustainable. http://www.coventrytelegraph.net... (Admittedly a biased source, but the words of an ex-chairman nether the less)
Fans of Football Teams in Eng. and Wales should be able to oust owners

I'm all for fans stopping their clubs from being 'commercialised' as such, but I don't think a simple petition from fans should be able to make such changes. More would have to be done. A certain board that includes a mixture of people who will be concerned with the financial, cultural and corporate aspects of the club have to be elected by the fans. Then the board can purpose ousting the owner. The board make the final decision. This will mean some consideration will be put into the case. Getting fans (of which many may be glory hunters if this is a club of any size) to absentmindedly sign a petition will make fans less happy as they will be churning through owners faster than Vincent tan can sack Malky Mackay. Fans have, when had the choice, often been in favour of changing managers. This has occured even in clubs like Manchester United and Swansea who traditionally don't fire managers. For the few unlucky clubs who do have ownership problems I think fans' actions won't greatly differ. Football is a business that deals with high amounts of money - new players coming to a certain country may provide economic benefits similar to those of a similarly priced infrastructure project - and having a Manx2 style spaghetti network of payers that you isn't properly governed is a big problem that could very well happen if we football fans aren't careful and importantly, patient. Being impatient won't reduce your chances of relegation.
Fans of Football Teams in Eng. and Wales should be able to oust owners

As a Coventry City fan living in an area dominated by Cardiff City fans, I know first hand how owners can ruin football clubs. I believe that the FA should make it a rule that if X amount of fans (obviously varies on the size of the club and level of football) of a particular club sign a petition to oust the owner of their club the owner could be ousted. This type of rule could have prevented the disastrous reigns of Vincent Tan at Cardiff, SISU at Coventry and many other owners at other clubs.
Birth Control

I agree with your point that in some cases, a young woman not being able to obtain birth control would prevent her from being sexually active, and therefore might prevent a mistake from happening. But isn't the point of birth control to prevent a mistake from happening either way? The common age for a girl to become sexually active is 15... and though a parent should know what is going on with their child, most likely, they will not and never will know what is going on with their 15 year old daughter. Furthermore, each year in United States, 800,000 to 900,000 adolescents 19 years of age or younger become pregnant, with a high percentage of that number being unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. If a young woman could prevent an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy that may or may not end in abortion, why shouldn't she be able to?
Birth Control

I understand and respect your arguments. In response to your question regarding age, yes I do believe a girl should wait until the age of eighteen to be able to obtain birth control. I understand your point that you believe a girl who wants to obtain birth control is already sexually active, however I believe that in some cases the lack of birth control will keep them from becoming sexually active and possibly prevent a mistake from happening. By allowing a young girl of any age to obtain birth control with no knowledge to their parents, it is making it easy for young girls to make mistakes that they may be too immature to recognize at the time.
Birth Control

I understand your side, and I agree that girls should be able to talk to their parents about obtaining birth control. However, in cases where a parent would not let his or her child obtain birth control, I believe a young woman should be able to receive it herself. If a young woman is interested in obtaining birth control, then chances are she has been or will be sexually active soon, with or without her parents' consent. If she is allowed to get birth control, then the risk of becoming pregnant is decreased significantly, a conclusion that I believe should be a young woman's own right. If you believe that someone needs parental consent, what age do they no longer need it, 18?
Birth Control

I respect your view on the topic however I believe parental consent should be required when a minor wants to obtain birth control. A child under the age of 18 isn't allowed to vote, some don't even have a license however they are engaging in an act that can bring a whole new person to the world. Maturity is a large factor in the topic of birth control. Often, girls believe that they should get birth control behind their parent's backs to avoid awkward conversation or even disappointment. However, what girls fail to see is that their parents are there to help them and might surprise them and support their decision to get birth control.
Birth Control

I believe that birth control should be allowed to be obtained without parental consent. When a girl is requesting to use birth control, she is being mature and responsible and it is her own right, not her parents, to make the decision to have sex or not. If someone is making the decision to have sex, they should be mature enough to make the decision to be safe about it. Further more, most teens would have sex if they want to regardless if they have protection or not, so it is better to be safe than sorry.
Birth Control

I understand your argument and respect your opinions however, I also continue to stand by my opinion that girls under the age of eighteen should not have access to birth control without a parent's consent. A young girl with the maturity of a freshman in high school should not be able to make such an important decision on her own. With easy access to the pill, a whole new set of problems can erupt. Just talking to a parent about birth control helps make the decision easier and more understandable for a young girl with little to no education in such areas.
Birth Control

I do understand your point about how parents should be aware if their child is doing prescription medication. However, concluding my argument, I still stand by my point that women under 18 should have the right to birth control without parents' consent. In history, during the National Birth Control movement, a right to privacy was established, which meant that women had the right to control their own body. I believe that this right is extended to all women, not just women over 18. It is a young women's own decision to use birth control, and if a girl does not feel comfortable talking to her parents about her sexual activity, I do not believe that should prevent her from a mistake like teenage pregnancy.
Birth Control

No I do not believe that such a mistake should not be avoided. However if you were a parent, wouldn't you want to know if your child was going on prescription medication? I understand that parents should have trust in their children and trust in themselves that they raised them to have good character. So I believe that if a parent uncovered their child sneaking around and intentionally hiding medication and such an important decision from them, the parent would feel their rights are compromised. Until the child turns eighteen, the parents still withholds all rights regarding their child and their life. No matter the maturity level of the child involved, a parent should be notified for the sole reason that their child is going on prescription medication.
Birth Control

To answer your question, while I do agree with you that a freshman or sophomore in high school may be influenced by many other factors in her life, she might not be emotionally ready or mature enough to make the decision about obtaining birth control by herself. However, if this young girl believed she was emotionally stable enough to become sexually active (even if she is not) she should have the right to obtain birth control in case her parents do not consent. Again, if this young girl was to continue being sexually active even without her parents consent to get birth control, why should she be able to get pregnant which would complicate her life even further? If she could pay for the birth control pills, and was responsible enough to take them everyday, I don't understand why she should not be able to prevent a mistake from happening.
Birth Control

I understand your point however you may be misunderstanding me. I do believe girls should be able to obtain birth control to take control of their sex life and be able to prevent unwanted and unplanned mistakes. I agree with you on the fact that girls should be able to obtain such prevention and the high number of teen pregnancy further proves that. However I believe the users parents should be involved in the process. Even though a young girl may not want to talk about such topics with her parents, the discussion and decision to get birth control are things that should not be simply left to the opinions and maturity of a freshman or sophomore in high school. At that age girls are influenced by so many other things that may make a responsible decision difficult. Do you believe that such an important decision should be able to be made by a child of any age?
Militaristic style weapons ban

I'll make this brief, since I've waited until the last minute to post, thanks to exams.My point was that criminals tend to make irrational decisions. If they were smart people, they wouldn't be murdering people in the first place, now would they? Now, consider the popular culture notions that most Americans have about guns. Now, think about toy guns. Why do toy guns have a red/orange tip on them? It's so people don't think that they are real guns. Now, consider this - if it is necessary to put a red tip on a plastic toy to make sure people know it isn't a real gun, what do you think the odds are of someone mistaking a semi-automatic gun for a fully-automatic gun? I would suppose the odds are fairly high. This goes for idiot criminals and for people who have a gun pointed at them who wouldn't have time to think. This is especially true for the AK-47 - think of one place in the media and popular culture where you've seen someone using a semi-automatic AK. You'll have trouble finding one.A folding stock wouldn't necessarily let you hide a gun under your shirt. However, it'd be much easier to put it in a briefcase or in a backpack.Barrel shrouds aren't covered under the assault weapon ban except on pistols, when they can "be used as a hand-hold". It does, however, cover flash suppressors, which (as implied by the name) do suppress the flash. I assumed this is what you meant.If certain calibers of grenade launchers are used for non-lethal rounds, then I can agree that those should be more loosely regulated (I take it that it wouldn't be so easy to hand-load a rifle grenade). However, I wouldn't go so far as to call it fully aesthetic (vestigial sounds more appropriate).As for hunting, my final thoughts on the subject would be that, since semi-automatic rifles are a relatively recent invention compared to the practice of deer hunting, it is very possible to kill a deer without even using a gun.
Militaristic style weapons ban

There are two types of mass murderers; the planned, and the spree. The planners would carefully review their plans, and be sure that everything can go the best way possible for them. They will do research on the type of weapon, the place, the time, as much a they can. The other, spontaneously commits the action with little forethought. The urge for murder is caused by a trigger that makes them grab whatever they have access to, go to the nearest mass, and start firing, slashing, bashing, or and other appropriate method. Most fall into the first category if they are successful. They will find what they need, be it a militaristic AR-15, or their grandpa's old hunting rifle. I believe you were contradictory in your previous statement. You say you have nothing against semi-automatic weapons, but there are very few difference from a semi-automatic rifle that would be used for sport, and a militaristic style weapon. As I have used as an example before, the Ruger Mini-14, and an AR-15 do pretty much the same thing. You stated that an AK- is automatic and banned. This is not true there are many AK-47 semi-automatic weapons that one can legally buy a a nearby gun shop. I have shot my friends AK-47, and always see them next to the AR-15 in my local shop. U.S. law requires that all imported AK-47 have previously been converted to semi-automatic. A folding stock allows a gun to be more compact, but I do not see why this makes it more dangerous. You could say that it makes it more concealed, but it doesn't. It would make the weapon more bulky, and easier to see under clothes. A barrel shroud does nothing to the flash. A barrel shroud covers the barrel and protects the user from burning themselves on the hot barrel after firing. This does not only occur after rapid-fire; my muzzle loading 1858 Enfield barrel gets so hot that I tie a bandanna around it for my hand. My Mosin Nagant, bolt action has a wooden stock around the barrel, and it has burned me through the wood. My AR-15 however, has never burned me, because of its shroud. Tube-loaded rifles are almost never semi-automatic, I have yet to see one, so they would be exempt anyway. Detachable magazines are something almost every modern rifle has no matter the action or round. Grenade launchers are actually almost fully aesthetic, it is illegal to buy grenades for them. There are smaller caliber launchers that you can buy pepper spray, flares, and other non-lethal rounds for. Military caliber is expensive and rare. Finally, lever-action shotguns are not only hard to find, but they are almost always smooth-bore, therefore not anywhere near as good for deer as a rifled shotgun. Also, lever and pump action shotguns are more vulnerable to misfires, jams, and just not loading at all. Deer can run out of range faster than you can chamber in another round. By the way, i am really enjoying this debate (it is my first) and appreciate your well thought, well researched arguments. Looking forward to the next round.
Militaristic style weapons ban

I'd like to point out a few smaller things first: Owning a gun still won't do anything to a plane or a tank, unless the guns in questions are flak cannons, SAM launchers, and anti-tank RPGs The stated objective of an assault weapons ban was not to stop gun crimes, but to reduce the amount of people killed before the shooter is dealt with - more people can be killed in a short amount of time with a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine than with a small handgun. While the amount of crimes committed with assault weapons is relatively low, the amount of injuries and fatalities from said crimes would represent a higher ratio. Criminals are idiots. If they are presented with a choice between something modern and scary looking versus something that looks like grandpa's old rifle, which do you think they will choose? Probably the scary looking one. An AK-47 is a fully-automatic weapon, and, as such, is already banned. Many of the "aesthetic" features you listed serve practical purposes. A folding stock obviously allows the gun to be made more compact for carrying or storage. A barrel shroud suppresses the muzzle flash, preventing blindness from firing in dark conditions. Detachable magazines were used as part of the category (semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazine with x amount of features), in other words, tube-loaded rifles would be completely excluded from the ban. One of the features listed as something that could make a weapon banned was "grenade launcher" - I don't even have to argue how that is not aesthetic. I never said anything against semi-automatic firearms, I am only talking about weapons covered by the AWB. As for your argument about hunting, I don't think I would ever be able to refute it (mainly due to it being anecdotal evidence that I can't relate to), however, I think a lever action shotgun would probably be quick enough for most situations.
Militaristic style weapons ban

The tactical advantage the citizens would have if there was a civilian versus tyrannical government numbers. Out of 1000 people in he United States, 88.8 of them own a gun. That gives our military, a great amount of armed people to fight. that is why I predict that no such thing would happen in the United States unless all arms are confiscated beforehand, and all of this assuming no foreign aid. But that argument aside, the handgun, as suggested in your prior argument, is much more prominently used in gun violence than a militaristic rifle. Militaristic style rifles, are used in under 2% of all gun crime, so banning them (assuming no grandfathering in, and illegal marketing) the decrease in crime would be almost immeasurable if not zero. When one weapon is banned, criminals move on to another. in the gun ban in England, where almost all guns were confiscated and destroyed, violence rose, and now doctors are calling for a ban on point-tipped knives because of their sharp increase in stabbings. As for hunting, I am an avid hunter, killed a turkey just last Sunday. In my state, for deer and turkey season, shotguns are all that are legal, but there are other states that allow rifle usage. There are many times that I have wounded an animal, and not killed it. I have also heard many similar stories. This is incredibly painful for the animal, and it is likely that it ill die of infection. a semi-automatic rifle allows for a larger likeliness of a kill, and with the decrease in hunters recently, that is needed to keep the deadliest animal in North America, the White-Tailed Deer, under control. I have purchased an assault weapon recently, that is a shotgun, because of this. the semi-automatic weapon, seems to be what you have exploited and shown why it isn't needed, and in America, we use may things everyday, that are not needed and serve no practical use. should we outlaw TVs? Video games? Movies? these serve no practical use. Semi-automatic rifles, are also not what this debate is covering. It is covering AR-15s, AK-47s, and other militaristic style weapons. Not all semi-auto weapons. You have also failed to show the difference with guns like the Ruger Mini-14, that was allowed under the Assault Weapons Ban. The Assault Weapons Ban banned guns according to cosmetic features only, not any performance affecting features. it banned folding and collapsing stocks, pistol grips, barrel shroud, a magazine not attached to the grip, and other small, non-performance affecting features. the ban did nothing to sop violence, and manufacturers of the now banned guns took off those ascetic features and put them right back on the market. Militaristic style weapons are not a big addition on crime, and the only thing a ban would accomplish is a pointless limit on personal freedom, which is not what a free nation does. citizens should be allowed to do what they wish if it does not cause harm to others.