BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
we should ban boxing as a sport professionally

1) My opponent believes that we should ban a sport (that sport being Boxing) because it would cause side effects. First, I would like to mention that Con didn't list or state any of the side effects in his argument. Then, Con goes on to call Boxing a combat sport, which it is. I would like list a few other combat sports. They are as follows: kickboxing, MMA and Judo. These sports, including boxing, have regulations, (RULES & REGULATIONS state that a boxer must wear gloves, a mouthpiece, headgear for amateurs, loose-fitted shorts and soft-soled shoes), put into place that would prevent a player from further being injured (Let's not forget how these, 'contenders,' (as they are called) play the sport because they not only signed a contract to play it but they enjoy it as well). SOURCE FOR RULES & REGULATIONS: http://boxing.isport.com... 2) There are other sports that can cause the same injuries. One sport that is close to, if not greater than, the amount of injuries a player sustains is AMERICAN FOOTBALL. Should we ban AMERICAN FOOTBALL too? If we banned every sport that has the possibility to cause injury, then there wouldn't be any sports to enjoy. Is it, necessarily, our job to put a roadblock on every sport that causes injury? Not only would it get in the way for a person to do what they enjoy, but it would violate the three most salient unalienable rights that are given to every human being at birth. Let's not do that. Instead, just let them enjoy what they love. It isn't our duty to stop them. That is illegal and morally unjust. That is where I end my argument.
we should ban boxing as a sport professionally

1.You said people sign up for but look at it in all ways you need to care for your citizens health. If they retire they will have a lot of side effects after. So let's not spent money into that when easily avoiding that just banning boxing because your hit intentionally someone to hurt them 2.Boxing is a combat sport in which two people engage in a contest of strength, speed, reflexes, endurance, and will by throwing punches with gloved hands against each other. This simply means we are advancing our natural violence level which we already have. Even if wear gloves they work at all because people get cuts when fight. So said we were born violent but don't tell me a baby can do boxing according to how your saying it .So in conclusion am still standing that boxing should be banned
we should ban boxing as a sport professionally

1) Plain and simple; people sign up for this. People are KNOWINGLY risking their health for something they enjoy. Banning this sport would be a violation of the three basic unalienable rights for us, "Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." Banning the sport wouldn't hold up in court. A lawyer can bring this up and win and shut down the case immediately. 2) You don't, "promote," violence. Violence is inherited as we are hunters and gatherers. It is within our genes to be violent. It is not something that is, "learned."
we should ban boxing as a sport professionally

I am saying boxing should be banned for these reasons 1.Boxing causes many deaths, and medical officials have continually called for it to be banned.The British Medical Association has repeatedly called for a ban on boxing or a removal of the head from the permitted target areas. The body of medical evidence is growing that suggests even if a boxer survives individual bouts relatively unmarked, the cumulative effect of a career in boxing can lead to a greater susceptibility to chronic neurological injury 2.We are promoting violence. Boxers are presented as beacons of success for young people, but they are not good role models. Children should not idolize people who make a living by injuring other people. In addition to the violence in the ring, brawls often break out at press conferences and even inside boxing venues. The marketing of boxing exalts this mindless violence and those who perpetrate it. Mike Tyson is a particularly harmful example. Tyson was one of the most popular and successful boxers in history, when he faced Evander Holyfield in the most hyped fight of the year. Tyson cruelly bit off a portion of Holyfield"s ear in the fight, on live television. These are not role models of which we should be proud.
Circular and Self-Referential Logic is both valid and awesome!

What is the opposite of the opposite? I have taken this debate on for two reasons; 1) Possibility arises from the possibility of possibility it self. 2) The meaning of meaning is meaning it self. Any apologies due should be for apologizing. Your argument includes assuming that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome. Well we can assume that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome and that its valid and awesome that its valid and awesome all day long. But in order for your argument to be on point, assumption must be valid and awesome. It is not. You must have assumed peoples assumption was that assuming is valid and awesome. Assuming is not valid and awesome. Assuming is assuming. I assert that my argument disproves your argument, and in doing so disproves my argument disproving your argument. Luckily for me we are voting on your argument. Facts ignore being ignored. You lose because I win. ************************ I suspect suspicion... You should consider validating validation and examining your examination. Thank you for letting me complicate complication. Who wants freedom? from freedom?
Circular and Self-Referential Logic is both valid and awesome!

Note: this really isn't intended to be a serious debate as much as a mathematical and logical joke. Apologies to anyone whose time I'm wasting. Proposition: Circular and Self-Referential Logic is both valid and awesome. Argument: Assume that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome. Therefore, this argument is valid and awesome, so we can conclude that circular and self-referential logic is valid and awesome, validating our assumption. QED.
911 inside job

The only explanation for the towers exploding was the use of explosives and incendiarys. 1.Extremely high temperatures were evident before and after the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers. These extremely high temperatures contradict the official story because office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500° to 1,500° F) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700° F). http://rethink911.org...andhttp://rethink911.org...2.Implausibility of the Official TheoryBoth theories about the buildings collapsing are the least plausible explanationhttp://rethink911.org...http://rethink911.org...3.Free fall acceleration of building 7 The fact that Building 7 underwent free-fall means that none of the building’s potential energy was used to crush the structure below it. All of its potential energy was converted directly into energy of motion (kinetic energy), leaving no energy to do anything else. Therefore, the lower section of the building could not have been crushed by the falling section. The destruction of at least 8 stories of the lower section of the building had to have been accomplished by other means to allow the upper section of the building to fall through it in free-fall.http://rethink911.org...3.Hundreds of Eyewitnesses report explosionshttp://rethink911.org...4. Forknowledge of collapsehttp://rethink911.org...5.No deacceleration of the top of the north tower during collapse proves the columns below were removed http://rethink911.org...6.The building exploded. Where did the building go ? It turned to dust . How ? How can Dust crush concrete into dust .Contents ejected from building could not have been ejected laterally 500 ft if it were due to gravity if the building collapsed naturally.http://rethink911.org...Now we know the buildings were demolished who did it and why ? Great investigative work has been done By Kevin Ryan and summarized in this video by another truther. Good work to him and all for providing all the research into who else had motives and access to the towers. http://antioligarch.wordpress.com...
911 inside job

Witnesses of the flashes also confirm they were not camera effects. "Explosion.... huge explosion... loud blast... secondary explosions... secondary device... flashes... bombs... shockwave... detonators... controlled demolition... the thickest steel, bent like a pretzel... s://wikispooks.com...; alt="Twin_Towers_WTC" width="197" height="257" />The Twin Towers before 9/11. molten steel ... lava ... [underground] fires of hell... more than 2,800 degrees F [1540°C]..."- As you will see, typical terms used by witnesses to describe their experiences during the attack and the clean up of the World Trade Center site. (example video clips one and two)"I spent the rest of the afternoon at the mayor's command center. The reporters were trying to figure out what happened. We were thinking that bombs had brought the buildings down. The mayor [Giuliani] talked to us and said he had no evidence of bombs."- 2002, Cathy Trost and Alicia C. Shepard, foreword by Tom Brokaw, Running Toward Danger - Stories Behind the Breaking News of 9/11, p. 203. "We were watching the building as it was on fire - the bottom floors of the building were on fire. And we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder. We turned around and we were shocked to see that the building was, what looked like a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busting out. It was horrifying. And then, you know, about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.- New York University medical student with the name Daryl, interviewed on 1010 WINS NYC News Radio immediately after the collapse of WTC 7 (example video clips one, two, three and four).
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

In order to debate the issue, we must first understand what affirmitave action is. Affirmitave action is a policy that is designed to promote equal opportunity in race or sex. In college how would this apply? Let's say the town the college is in, say homoville, is 60% African American and 40% caucasion. Now the school's incoming freshman demographics are supposed to reflect that. If the school accepts 10,000 incoming freshman a year, it would have to take 6,000 African Americans and 4,000 caucasion, however, let's say 20,000 people applied. 6,000 African Americans applied, 4,000 caucasions applied, and 10,000 Asians applied. Now let's say all 4,000 of the Asians are 4.0 students with perfect ACT and SAT scores along with 1,000 whites and 1,000 blacks. Now obviously all of those students would be admitted regardless of the towns demographics. That leaves 4,000 students up for grabs. Now if the 14,000 students remaining all had the same GPA and ACT/SAT scores, then the school would take 2,400 African Americans, 1,600 whites, and 0 Asians. If an African American student is not as qualified as a white student, affirmitave action DOES NOT apply. If two students are virtually identical, affirmitave action simply settles the issue.
Resolved: Affirmative action should be practiced in college admissions.

I will begin with a quote from my opponent: "The first flaw I find is that you have taken it on a basis that that everyone has the same score. In the real world, this is far from applicable. For the convenience of this debate, let's use a scoring system out of 100, instead of the point system. More to the point, 14,000 students are going to have 70/100 on the dot. However, I see my opponents point. If 10 people have the same scores, and only 6 can get through, you would choose reasoned on the demographics of the area. However, is this reasonable? I do not see the point in having people let in on the basis of race. There are many alternative ways to do this, which include the interviewing process" I agree that my example was extremely vague, as it was intended to be in order to help people understand the system. Likewise I completely agree that my example is not applicable in the real world. As you have stated, it is very rare for students to have the same transcript, or "score" as you say. That means that in a very large amount of cases Affirmative action does not really come into effect. Bottom line, if you get good scores, affirmitave action does not apply to you. Opponents second quote: "In affirmative action, people get in because of the demographics. Under the interviewing process, people get in because they have made the impression they are hard working and deserve a place in college. Affirmative action is unfair as people are chosen randomly out of a group rather than chosen through a professional manner." In no way does affirmitave action ban the use of the interviewing process. If a school did indeed want to interview a potential student, it is well within their rights. If it is still a tie after an interview, affirmitave action then applies. However affirmitave action for colleges is much more efficient. It is not in most colleges interests to interview students of similar academic standing, since it would take a gratuitous amount of time. Also interviews allow for people to put on a fake face and tends to favor people who are better at sucking up to the interviewer. 3rd quote: "Affirmative actions main goal is to promote equality and curb racism. However, is not letting in any Asians in one case of my opponents argument not racism? He is not letting a certain group in because they do not live in the area, but that is in the idyllic world where everyone has the same scores." Like I said, you get the grades and have the qualifications, you will get in regardless of race. AA settles "ties", if they do occur (which often times they don't). If an Asian doesn't get in, it is because he/she did not work hard enough to get in, not because of ethnicity. However the system that "screwed" him (screwed is inaccurate since it's his fault he wasn't accepted) will actually help him getting into a college where the Asian population is high. My points in Round 2 1) Affirmative action is a tie breaker to college admissions practices and doesn't decide whether a person of a specific ethnicity gets into a college or not.
Gay marriage

Marriage is heavily influenced by religion. And according the the bible, it is a sin to lie with another man like one would lie with a woman. There are still many ways to show love between homosexual couples without involving religious ceremonies in this. And where are we to draw the line? Gay marriage is sexually immoral according to the bible, and yet somehow it is still legal. Well, according to the bible, incest is also a sin (another verse in Leviticus, but again, no time to check, sorry). Should we make it legal for a sister to get married with her brother? Well it's equal rights, correct? What one does with their partner, be it a homosexual partner or a heterosexual partner, is of no matter to me. But when they start involving a religious ceremony that is sacred to a religion strongly opposed to gay marriage is a different story. Pro has presented absolutely no argument, except for one opening statement.
Gay marriage

My sincerest apologies for my poor argument. It usually takes me an hour of research and collecting sources to present a good argument, not 10 minutes! Marriage is a sacred act in Christianity. The fact that homosexuals, who are sinners in the eyes of the bible according to several verses, Leviticus 18:20 if I'm not mistaken, for example, is mocking Christianity. Sorry if that is incorrect, but there is no time to check right now. But what about all the rights that marriage brings? These rights through marriage should be given instead of through marriage, through some other type of legal partnership. Marriage is one of the 7 sacraments of the catholic church, and it is a very important, holy event. Allowing this act to be committed by sinners, to permit more sins, should not be legal. Again, my apologies for this poor excuse of an argument, but for someone extremely pressed on time, with the challenge of arguing such a touchy subject, I think I did pretty OK :p
Most religious bigotry and dogma has a real world sociological or biological origin.

I said prescriptions, not predictions. Rules such as the dietary rules in Leviticus were clearly included to stop people getting ill eating tainted pork and sea food. The anti-gay passages were clearly an attempt to maximize the reproduction potential of adherents, see also "be fruitful and multiply". but seeing as you quoted a "prediction" that is an ambiguous phrase that occurs in some translations. The JPS says that it's lions at his hands and feet digging/biting. Also Psalm 22 has a UNICORN!
Most religious bigotry and dogma has a real world sociological or biological origin.

The Biblical text is divine in origin, but that it did not come from humans because it includes a progressive knowledge of God from Gen. to Rev. How is it that the prophecies in the Bible come true far later than it's time? For example, how is it that Psalm 22:16 "My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs; an evil gang closes in on me. They have pierced my hands and feet" would later speak of Jesus being crucified when Roman crosses didn't exist yet? Pro hasn't given proof to back his claims.
Most religious bigotry and dogma has a real world sociological or biological origin.

I'm vague and ranting? your 1st round was a mile off topic (I think because you took prescription to mean prediction) and you accused me of having lack of proof, when your only proof of biblical prediction is other parts of the bible. and as for sources,it's kinda hard to quote and cite sources in 500 characters. as for Leviticus, As you already quoted the bible, I assumed you had enough knowledge to know the laws it contains. Leviticus 11:4 - no pork , 11:12 - no shellfish 18:22 - no gay sex
Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

Recreational Marijuana should not be legalized. It is harmful and dangerous, and legalizing it would be no better than legalizing heroin. Addictive substances such as this should not be allowed to harm our citizens. While there is danger in legalizing it, there is no danger in keeping it illegal. Therefore, the logical solution is that recreational marijuana be kept illegal. Also, while people say that it only harms the people who use it, what about those people's friends and families? It is important to protect everyone possible from the effects of recreational marijuana.
Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

Should marijuana become legalized for recreational use? In this debate, I am taking the Pro stance, meaning I support the legalization. 1st round - State your stance. 2nd round - Evidence to support stance. 3rd round - Counter the opponent's stance. 4th round - Closing statement/Final evidence and/or opinion. I will not stand rude or childish responses. I'm looking for a fun, cordial debate between people who can handle the topic. Thanks in advance, and I look forward to debating!
Gun Bans

Con argues that 680 deaths are meaningless. I would like you to tell that one to the family members of those who died as a result. Next I accept that both alcohol and tobacco should also be banned therefore his argument holds no ground. Con also chose to ignore that people could protect themselves by other means than firearms. He conceited this argument. Con restated an argument that I already proved to be worthless "Guns protect us from tyrants." Since Con bears the burden of proof here and I he has not presented any logical argument why Americans should have the right to bear arms you should vote pro. Also, I have given at least one reason why guns should be banned.
Gun Bans

Pro uses the argument that "Criminals will have Guns and We Will All Be Damsels in Distress" Pros first argument is that there were 680 accidental deaths related to guns in 2008. Children had died. Let me show you how little that number is compared to many things that are legal in America. 13,846 people died from Alcohol abuse and drunk driving in 2008. But alcohol is perfectly legal. About 438,000 Americans die per year from smoking where 50,000 of them is from second hand smoking. But smoking is legal. Very well legal and regulated. To say that we need to take someone's gun away because it might kill someone is like saying that we need to cut everyone tounges out because someone might yell "fire" in a movie theatre. Pro cannot proof that Gun Prohibition would prevent these Criminals from having guns and/or using them violently. There are many things that are prohibited such as drugs, free online music, littering, and etc. The point is that people still do those things, even though they are illegal. So how do we know that Gun Prohibition would be any different? Prohibition of something doesn't stop the use of it. In his third argument rebutting my "We Need to be able to form a Militia to Battle our Tyrannical Government" He brings a logical argument. My argument is that I would rather have guns than not have guns in a situation like that. If we are in a police state we need every bit of resource to protect ourselves from Tyranny. http://www.alcoholalert.com... http://digghealth.com...
Gun Bans

Argument I: Guns Kill People In 2008 there were 680 accidental deaths related to guns and an average of five children per day were involved in an accidental discharge of a firearm in the United States (1). Many of these children likely knew not what they were doing and therefore the discharge of the firearm infringes on their "life and liberty," as you so kindly worded it. Argument II: Criminals will have Guns and We Will All Be Damsels in Distress What police call "less lethal" options have decreased injuries to both the officers using them and the "criminals" that they were used on since they were adopted in NY and Boston (2). Weapons such as pepper spray have allowed officers of the law to more safely diffuse situations where a suspect was armed, many citizens have followed suit (i.e. women carrying pepper spray to the bar). Argument III: We Need to be able to form a Militia to Battle our Tyrannical Government This is not 1776 the last time I checked, please correct me if I am wrong. Any uprising a citizens militia could raise with the weapons afforded to them by current law would be stopped within seconds of its formation. How would these citizens handle the force of the United States Military? This isn't a matter of hiding in the woods from the British Empire and sneak attacking their camp. This is the twenty-first century, to assume that a citizens militia could even make the United States military pause is absolutely ridiculous so I won't even bother with further evidence or a source for this argument. Conclusion - Con has not provided any reason that we, as citizens, should have the right to bear arms and I have shown that accidental shootings infringe on the affected parties rights and therefore their should be no right to bear arms. (1) http://www.thesurvivorsclub.org... (2) http://www.nij.gov...