BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ban the consumption of dog meat in countries that have citizens consume dog meat.

I think we should ban the consumption of dog meat in countries that have citizens consume dog meat. There are about 11 countries around the world that allow the consumption of dog meat. Compared to the rest of the world, they are *outnumbered*. Con stating that "We should tolerate and accept each country's own unique diverse culture and tradition." means that the countries that allow eating dog meat should accept and tolerate the countries that ban eating dog meat, they should be acceptive. That is why I think we should ban the consumption of dog meat.
Corporate Bailouts

Actually the damage from the collapse of our banks was verified in the great depression and is exactly what happened. The stock market was massively over-valued and when it crashed people, banks, and businesses lost everything. As a result they spent less money resulting in less revenue for businesses and more people losing their jobs and spending less money. Also everyone tried to get their money out of the banks but only so much is in the banks at one time and so the banks went bankrupt when they couldn't pay. This resulted in people and businesses losing their life savings, spending less, and businesses losing more jobs as a result. This destructive cycle continued from 1928 to 1933 until the government called a banking holiday and gave them financial assistance that allowed them to open their doors again one by one. But by that time unemployment had risen to 25%, 30% of our GDP disappeared, and industrial production fell by 50%, It wasn't until 1945 or 17 years later that we fully recovered. Thanks to the bailout the big banks didn't collapse and out lowest point was 2010, 2 years later. Now our unemployment is back down to 4.6% and wages are growing again. The peak unemployment was only 10% and we lost only 2% of our GDP. https://www.britannica.com... Even good businesses can fail during a depression. If all your money just disappears because your bank collapsed, or all your customers lost their jobs so you don't have any sales, then you are in big trouble no matter how great your business is. Small recessions can trim the fat but an economic collapse will take a lot of meat and bone with it. I agree that many of these big banks didn't deserve to be saved but if they fell a lot of small businesses and people who do deserve to be saved would have been ruined too. So giving to the big banks was really giving to America since it helped save our economy. Another big point is that the bailout wasn't a gift to banks, it had to be paid back. From the 621 billion paid out we actually got back 693 billion and this is actually an 11% profit from interest. https://projects.propublica.org... The government passed restrictions to keep something like this from happening again so we don't have to give the big banks taxpayer money. There is debate over whether more or fewer regulations are needed and whether we should break up the big banks so we don't have to depend on individual ones so much.
The NFL should do more to protect players from concussions.

The key question for voters in this debate is simple: my opponent established in his opening round a cost-benefit analysis. As I did not contest this, I agreed to it. To quote him, "If, on balance, benefit exceeds cost, Pro wins. If the reverse is true, Con wins". CostsIn a way, this entire debate was about cost. My opponent attempted to establish concussions as a major cost, but I established concussions as a fairly uncommon injury, accounting for only 5% of injuries. I established that concussions do not significantly impact the lives of most NFL players - NFL players live longer on average than the average American male, and concussions had only a marginal effect on causes of death compared to the general populace. Meanwhile, my opponent's source was admitted by it's author to be insufficient for real change. Simply put: my opponent failed to establish concussions as the major cost he set out to establish, and I established them as not being a major cost. BenefitsSimilarly, in regard to benefit, it's clear my position succeeded. My opponent has proposed several policies, which I contested the benefit of. I noted his healthcare policy would come at a massive expense, the helmet policy he proposes would require a rather extreme, restrictive undersuit that players wouldn't wear, and that his proposed turf policy would not work in most stadiums, and would come at a major cost: an increase in lower-body injuries, which have potential for life-long problems, and potential exposure to cancer-causing material. Meanwhile, I established that NFL-created policies like my opponent suggests wouldn't work, let alone spread to other leagues like he claism: the solution, I noted, was to develop good tackling techniques early, at lower levels. In short: my opponent simply didn't meet his own framework. He failed to demonstrate costs, and his proposed "benefits" all would come at unacceptable costs of their own. Meanwhile, I established concussions as a relatively uncommon injury that can best be handled by players, coaches, and their doctors - a point my opponent simply never refuted.
The NFL should do more to protect players from concussions.

Thank you TN05. I'll just get straight into voting issues. 1. Severity Pro and Con have agreed concussions are an extremely serious issue. Therefore, concussions should be combated. Concussions can cause irreparable damage to the brain and even death. Concussions are underreported, as per my rebuttal, and not properly dealt with, as per the constructive. We must do something to prevent this very real danger. 2. The NFL's role Both sides agree more has to be done. I argue that enforcing current rules is doing more, since the rules aren't enforced in the status quo. A change in the status quo means doing something different, in this case more. Vote Pro as Con conceded that rules should be enforced and therefore that more should be done. Additionally, my points about helmets are definitely still standing. Helmets could easily be mandated to meet certain requirements as per the league's rules. Vote Pro on this. My opponent's turf rebuttal applies only to the loose rubber turf apparently, so pull through the turf idea also. Finally we have healthcare. Though the NFL has far more players, they have, on average, shorter careers (see constructive) AND the NFL has far more capital than the NBA. The league could easily afford it. Don't buy Con's argument about cost. As almost every one of my avenues toward a safer league stands, I can see no vote but a Pro vote. Thank you. (Go Bucs!)
The NFL should do more to protect players from concussions.

Thank you TN05. I'll just be getting right into rebuttals.Re: Contention 1Uniqueness is irrelevant. This debate is not "only the NFL and no other league should do more to protect players from concussions" and anything else is outside of the resolution. The NHL probably should also but that's a separate debate. In response to the frequency argument, there are two issues. The first is that like my opponent said, this is an issue of severity. Concussions lead to serious problems later in life including long term impairments and brain damage. In some instances, it can even lead to death from brain swelling. [1] In addition, concussions are extremely under reported. [2] The neurosurgeon that inspired the film Concussion even argues that over 90%of players have brain injuries to some extent. [3] Also, even 5% is alarming with the severity of the injury. That means (if my opponent's figure had actually been accurate) one of every twenty players has suffered a concussion-an alarming rate.Re: Contention 2I explained in my constructive how, under the current system, failure to act is common. Cross apply these arguments. In addition, the youth-based effort is great, however (if it actually does work) we can't just let the concussion epidemic continue for fifteen years until these kids are the ones in the league. Top-down must be put in action for the now and for the future as rules and techniques tend to trickle down from there.Re: Contention 3My opponent's own source 4 speaks of the dangers and extent of head trauma in the NFL."The research found that professional football players in this study were three times more likely to die as a result of diseases that damage brain cells compared to the general population. A player’s risk of death from Alzheimer’s disease or ALS was almost four times higher than the general population." [4]Death isn't the only issue here. Debilitating diseases also are of significant concern and action should be taken to prevent this.Re: Contention 4No doubt, players and coaches should be more attentive. However, as proved in my constructive, simple actions made by the league (under-turf mat, redesigned helmets, neck brace, better enforcement of rules) can make a big difference and positively affect player safety. It is for this reason that we must affirm the resolution.Sources[1] http://www.mayoclinic.org...[2] http://www.espn.com...[3] http://time.com...[4] https://www.aan.com...
The NFL should do more to protect players from concussions.

This is for Bsh1's DDO Olympic Debate tournament. I look forward to an interesting debate with my opponent, who also happens to be my partner in the team tournament. Hopefully he only advances in one of the tournaments! Full text of the resolution: The National Football League should do more to protect players (or retroactively work to help and compensate them) from head injuries, particularly concussions. Rules: No semantics No trolling No kritiks/counterplans No new arguments in the final round BoP is shared If TN05 has any issues with the resolution or definitions he wishes to add, he must contact me to change it before we begin. Once the debate starts all rules and definitions are accepted.
how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments

I do agree that some obese people have diseases, like many thin people have anorexia. However, I don't agree with you that an obese person doesn't eat a lot. He does. I myself was over 150 pounds when I was only ten. I didn't have any illness or problem in my digestive system, I just ate and didn't do enough exercise at the end of the day to burn the calories I needed to stay I good shape. That's how people get obese, at least the majority of them. Later on they might get a disease relating to their digestive system due to the fact that they have had a long history of over eating and surrounding their whole body in fat, which is never healthy. Of course this doesn't go to all people, some have illnesses, some don't. On the other hand, I also disagree with you when you say that obese people no matter how hard they work there is no outcome. I've seen it happen, read, and heard about it. Out of the top of my head these are a few people who went from obese to thin. You don't have to watch the whole video, or read the whole article, just either read the headline or parts of it to get an idea:http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com... These are two very inspirational people who have lost more than 400-650 pounds each naturally, with diet and dedication.It was a really nice debate :) If you have any other interesting debates in mind please do write my name in the opponent part ;)
how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments

First of all, I would like to say that you are right, good job man. However, there is one point with what i disagree. You are saying that an obese man is eating way too much. This is not true at all. Majority( not everyone) who are suffering from obesity are ill people, because their digestion system are working slowly to digest food, this could be because of gender. There is nothing to do when it is a gendery illness, because no matter how hard you work to loose a weight- there's no outcome. In my opinion, this question is over, I mean that we didn't need to go on about this topic, because you mostly right as i do. It was nice to talk to you.
how do you think what suffering from is the worst : obesity or being thin? prove by arguments

Initially, i'd like to agree with your opinion that obesity is not better than being thin in any case, but there are also some unfavourable problems when your body needs some kind of vitamins, chemical elements such as iron, calcium or zinc. However, your stomach doesn't digest this extremely crucial chemical elements because there is something wrong with digestion system which leds to being thin and having problems with health.
"Racism" and "Racist"

Okay, final argument. First off, I am not attacking liberals as I have already stated, I am very liberal myself, I just happen to disagree with applying the term racist to everyone who disagrees with me as I have seem many people do. Secondly, I know there are many black Republicans as well as Republican Asians and Hispanics. However, these groups only form a small percentage of the over all republican party. Most republicans are in fact white Christian males and this group is often unfairly branded as racist for the misdeeds of many white Christian males of the past. This is wrong. Con has no way of knowing how educated or uneducated those posters are; online a person can only go by what someone has typed. I also have to say that I feel that Pro is wrong on racism not being a big thing in politics now; it is still huge it is just that because the general public will no longer go along with openly racist ideology politicians on both sides must take a more subtle right. Lastly, one's again Con has misunderstood me. I am also a firm believer in freedom of speech. If someone wants to spew racist garbage fine, I would just prefer it if they were open about it instead of hiding behind things such as only parasite use welfare (an obvious yet subtle jab at African and Hispanic Americans). And in accordance with that if someone hates conservatives or Republicans I would like them to be upfront about it and with actually reasons not just that they are racist. That was all I was trying to say. Oh, and I am not white by the way, I feel that con was trying to make a point of that with the minorities as Republicans part.
"Racism" and "Racist"

What I meant was that in this day and age it seems to me that many people use the words racism and racist to describe anyone they disagree with. *MANY PEOPLE AS IN LIBERALS, you are change the phrase used above "...many people".First I would like to note that The Republican Party is not racist, you are correct but incorrect . That is not to say it doest’t have racists within its ranks, but the views held by the racist factions do not represent the official platform of the Republican Party, but to be fair there are also many African American republicans http://en.wikipedia.org.... Also, I would like to note that racist messages on boards about all Republicans are limited. I believe that most liberals are not discriminatory towards reblicans personally. but some liberals posting those message on those boards aren't the most educate, you see if they were educate they would post legitimize comments about republican faults in the past! politically racism isn't a problem in America, our president is half black and they're are many different ethnics in all areas of our government.vote for me 1) con simply understand the contexts of their use of the word racist or racism 2) con is attack liberal in a biased manner, con also fails to prove that some liberals are like racists or racists 3) con says "I am all for freedom and anti discrimination so long as... really aren't discriminating.....so they may discriminate against those whom hold views that oppose their own.pro doesn't understand the meaning of freedom, I'm totally against racist comments, but I'm also for free speech and free thought. being liberal is strongly for social freedoms. I heavily believe in the First Amendment which justify our rights. I believe that anything against the First Amendment is wrong and criminal. racist comments and racist thoughts aren't criminal, so as a long as they follow the First Amendment. this is why groups like the kkk and neonazis still operate in the usa (because some members follow the First Amendment)
"Racism" and "Racist"

Thank you for accepting pro, now, to begin. To clarify, what I meant was that in this day and age it seems to me that many people use the words racism and racist to describe anyone they disagree with. Common example, I have often read comments on message boards about all Republicans being racist. This is obviously not true. However, while in some cases this may very well be true I get the impression that many people do it as if to feel above conservatives. Conservatives do it as well except many tend to call any whom happen to disagree with them "socialist" and un-American." It is this usage of trying to destroy any point a conservative or republican might have which may or may not have to deal with race that I feel needs to stop. 1) I know racist is both an adjective and a verb. 2) That was not a part of the debate whom was more liberal than who, I simply asked to debate a liberal because this happens most often on the political left from what I have seen. 3) I am all for freedom and anti discrimination so long as people really aren't discriminating instead of talking about how enlightened they are (not a direct reference to con) so they may discriminate against those whom hold views that oppose their own.
"Racism" and "Racist"

Your statment is too vaugefor saying something racist is not the same as being called a racist. your sentence "I am going to argue that these words are way over used today." I dont understand what you mean by these words, so im simply going to imply your concept of racism and racist. The word racist is a ajective and a noun. racist person could besome who prejudice in to aethnic group or racial group. A racist is used as a ajective when discribing a noun is apperaing to be racists or like a racist. http://dictionary.reference.com... I see this happen way too much with other people on the left for my taste. many left are open minned people and by other people you mean other then yourself, you mean to say that all left sided people are racist, i disagree with this statment because its unfair to judge all left for being racists. in fact. i feel that this statment is discriminator and unjustifyed because of the use for my taste. this statment proves not only do you have have a baised reality but a discriminatory on to others voters vote for me 1) I CLEARLY justifyd and enlighnting you about the diffrence bettween racism and a racist( used as a adjective or noun) 2) i clearly more liberal and open minded than the pro 3) my statement represent the freedom and anti discrimination of all liberals and the educated view of this topic
Children need more time at school in P.E & Sport lessons

I see that you have brought up that I am 14 years old and that I can not be a P. E teacher. In fact I am it's just that I have put that I am younger than I actually am because I do not like to give out such personal information on the Internet because anyone such as yourself can access it. (as you have done already) I do not know who you are what age you are and quite frankly you could be something that is very bad. My opponent has put out very good arguments. As I have already said children DO need more exercise. my opponent complains and says that I am assuming but I am not assuming that children only get 1.45 hours of sport a week. Just because children have friends that do not mean that they have to play sport at lunchtime! I have said numerous amounts of times that children can and do sit and talk. Remember I have gone to school and I have see this, alot and it was not that long ago! Also you say that children could go to a friends place after school. This is true but what about if parents can't take them and as it comes up again just like the lunchtime argument children may not always play games. To most kids, T. V, computer and electronic games are much more fun and may very well play with those things instead of going outside. Also you could say that parents can make sure the children are outside but it is not like u can't take a laptop, a game boy or even a portable D. V. D player outside. My opponent has also said that not enough sport DOESN'T LEAD TO OBESITY! and that it is un healthy eating that causes it. That is one of the stupidest things I have heard! Of course it does. Even if you eat healthy, you might have a slow metabolism which makes it alt harder to loose weight! Even healthy food contains extra fat, sugar etc. that turns into fat. Without exercise you would never burn off anything and I have to say that Yes, most children do eat junk food, whether it's every once and a while or if it's everyday. The fact is that children do. I also have evidence that children should be getting 85 extra minutes a week of sport. Let's do some maths here. if children should be getting 30 minutes of sport everyday, over a five day period children should be getting 2.30 hours. At this rate most children are only getting 1.45 minutes over a five day period. So yes they should be getting 85 minutes extra a week (or simply 30 minutes per day) because that is what is reccomended every day I still do stick with all of my points and I would like to say to my opponent that by what you have said it sounds like you are against having sport lessons altogether and that you should only have it at play time and lunchtimes! but that is my opinion and you have yours So please I urge you to vote for me because if we do not act fast the future of children's weight will become worse than it already is and extra time for sport can help just that little bit.
Children need more time at school in P.E & Sport lessons

I would like to point out that my opponent had used valuable arguments but he has totally miss cornered my point. My point was that children were NOT getting enough time for P.E / sport at school. I am a P.E teacher and I also said that in a WHOLE week the children only get 1. 45 minutes!! Not 1.14 over two days or whatever my opponent said. But 1.45 minutes in a whole week is well below the standard. My opponent also said that children can join after school sports. This is true but what about the children's parents who don't have time to run around taking their children to sports? Or if they do not have enough money? The option is there but if parents can't afford to or can't take the children to after school circiular why can't they just have it at school? Also my opponent has said that sport is using up valuable time in the classroom. This is true but it's not like the children will die with out 30 minutes without a little maths, English, science etc, but children CAN die without sport because that does and can lead to obesity , high cloestrol , heart problems etc. My opponent has also pointed out that when he was at school, at recess he played games such as kickball and did not get supervised. I would just like to point out and say; that NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU AND WANTS TO PLAY GAMES AT LUNCHTIME!! Some kids do prefer to sit and chat and what I was trying to say before is that there is NO one to tell them that it IS compulsory to play a game at lunch time (which it is not!) where at sport/ P.E time it IS compulsory to join in and play & learn a new strategy or game. so yes, my opponent has made a mistake and should read more carefully and try to understand what I have said and realise that children SHOULD have more P.E / sport time Thank-you for reading this debate and I strongly urge you to vote for me.