azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Government's in the way

Its should be noted that there are many with the knowledge to convert conventional cars to electric. This process would be within profitability, and thus market actualisation, if patents didn't exist on the batteries in use for model electric cars. The electric car is feasible, has lower maintenance cost and can be done economically to any car. The only reason the electric car is not out on the streets is because car companies want to market the first one "correctly." We all know that after the first few cars, which will be ridiculous, the models will begin to look more like conventional cars. If this is the end result, it's within our grasp right know, and research for these batteries was partially funded (I think, I'm currently researching) by the government we should just start making them. The problem isn't that we need government to aid the development, production and marketing, we need government to get out of the way of people willing to do the production and marketing.We should always look at what manipulations we can remove to reach our cause before considering further manipulations. If it can't succeed on its own, it can, the government is not needed. If it can then just let it.As a computer scientist with much familiarity with *nix I can say without a doubt that intellectual property right diminish intellectual production. People will naturally be motivated to produce intellectual resources for there own aims anywhere there is a gap.http://blog.mises.org/10514/the-fallacy-of-intellectual-property/
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

If every single vehicle in America was magically electric, where will the power plants get all this new energy. More coal, natural gas and nuclear will be needed.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

The biggest thing people overlook with electric/hybrid vehicles is that we're trading one type of pollution for another. Sure, getting rid of or shrinking down internal combustion engines will reduce our air pollution, but what do you think the battery waste will do to our ecosystems? Batteries are extremely hazardous to the environment. Especially the huge lithium batteries that are used in electric and hybrid cars. No battery lasts forever, rechargeable or not, and not only are they extremely harmful, they're also insanely expensive to the point it could nearly offset the price you save on gas in a hybrid by the time you have to replace it.C'mon THINK people! Hydrogen is the future, NOT electric. Hybrid and electric is a short term solution and nothing more.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

Batteries are not ideal, but electric cars are definitely the future. Have a look at current Ultracapacitor technology that will soon replace batteries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEstorThe problem with hydrogen is it's density. Compressing hydrogen to a liquid costs 30% of the energy it contains.We must find a better way of moving ourselves as our current demand shows no signs of slowing. Technologically, there are few reasons that electric cars are not thriving and profitable. It is political will and profit by few that drives the industry today.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

For all the head injuries in game that happen with a helmet, I imagine the number would only increase if there were no helmets.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

Not that I don't trust you, but could we get some proof of this? The numbers for head injury cases where the athlete had a helmet compared to the time period before helmets were used, and maybe some peer reviewed source stating that if there were no helmet, they would have more injuries.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

Snarkiness noted, however I came forth from the start admitting I have no proof.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

If what you said constitutes coming forth without proof, then so did I.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

What you said"Players would be much less likely to lead with their head without the helmet."What I said"I imagine the number would only increase if there were no helmets."Of those two statements, which of those sounds like a fact, and which sounds like an opinion?Opinions require no proof, factual statements do.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

It is clear that the statement you made is something you imagined because you made it. There was no need for the word imagined. They are both opinions.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

You avoided my question I see, and denied my proof with another baseless claim, something you seem to be fond of. Is this Ad hominem? yes, because it seems you don't want to argue the issue, you want to argue with me, so I'll take that bet that I'm right, putting my character on the line.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

Is this Ad hominem? yesNo, I didn't insult you.You avoided my question I seeNo, they both sound like opinions. I didn't avoid your question.denied my proofYour definition of proof is just as loose apparently.putting my character on the linePutting nothing on the line. Wow, big gambler.don't want to argue the issueYou started it though.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

My bad for the confusion, my argument was mostly ad hominem, attacking you as a debater rather than your arguments, but I went on to explain why.If a question mark is used, it's a question, simple as that right?Picking and choosing random sentences, what's up with that?
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

Yes, if a question mark is used it is a question. What the fuck is your point?
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

I used a question mark, instead of a period. You did not answer the question. When I mentioned it in the next dispute, you said you were treating it as an opinions.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

I did answer your question. "They are both opinions". Look at the last line of my original argument. Next time read the whole thing.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

As a football player, yes. id probably be dead if i didnt .
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

What type of Dumbass Bullshit question is this. You rather wear NO helmet, get your head banged harder than Mark Ashley did Pinky instead of wearing a helmet, decreasing your chances of brain damage.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

What type of Dumbass Bullshit question is this.The guy who created the debate almost never asks a good question.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

I hope everyone understands that helmets in Football are for safety and not for fashion or something useless. It is like saying, why should a car have breaks? There are a lot of concussions during football games, but even if there werent, wouldn't it make sense to wear a helmet just in case.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

It should be mandatory that all football players wear helmets to help avoid head injuries.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

A vast majority of head injuries occur because the player leads with their head. Players would be much less likely to lead with their head without the helmet.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

Not that I don't trust you, but could we get some proof of this? The numbers for head injury cases where the athlete lead with his head, and maybe some peer reviewed source stating that if there were no helmet, they would not lead with their head.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

I am sorry, but there aren't peer reviewed sources on whether or not someone would lead with their head if they weren't wearing a helmet. Maybe just maybe you could ask yourself if you have headbutted anyone recently and if it seems like a bad idea.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

Isn't it a bit like saying without seatbelts people would drive safer?
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

No. The seatbelt doesn't allow you to use your body as a weapon. Putting a helmet on makes it possible to hit someone with your head.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

Putting on a helmet or a seatbelt then hitting someone else in a similar situation doesnt mean you will be safe. People die wearing seatbelts and get head injuries wearing helmets. The helmet is intended for safety during sporting events or recreation.  Putting a helmet on makes it possible to hit someone with your head.Getting a gun makes it possible to shoot other people. Guns are also made for safety or sport/recreation. Football players also wear cleats, next thing you know they will be kicking each other in the faces! ;P(Antonio Brown if you missed it).We Shouldn't get rid of seatbelts or hemets any more than guns or cleats.Both helmets and seatbelts are safety devices that are made to limit the risk in a worse case scenario situation (well up until limits of the device). Removing neither would be wise as we have seen their benefit in reducing certain types of injuries.Even with these safety equipment in place there are additional rules or supervision needed. We already have rules that limit how we play or drive. Races sometimes have restrictor plate rules and football has rules against things like horse collars tackles, spearing and so on. I think this is an issue that can be mitigated by penalties and or rules change.I think an issue here is specifically American football. It is a sport where you have a pretty large disparity in the players size, even more so in highschool and college. In a sport like football you can often see a 220lb guy tackle a 180lb guy at a full run. I mean outside of an assault or an episode of cops, sports is the most likely you are too see a thing like that.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

I just got through telling you that seatbelts and helmets are not related.Removing neither would be wise as we have seen their benefit in reducing certain types of injuries.Removing helmets will reduce the head injuries caused by thinking that helmets will protect against bad decisions. We need to decide if that is a valid trade off.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

I just got through telling you that seatbelts and helmets are not related.If you don't like the seat belt analogy how about lab goggles? They are all safety equipment that can offer a sense of false security in some users. Removing helmets will reduce the head injuries caused by thinking that helmets will protect against bad decisions.I think this is an issue of informed consent. I noted highschool and supervision because of this. Manufacturers have specs on the helmets and warnings on proper use and the game has rules against helmet to helmet contact already. ?.do you at least recognize that the purpose of the helmet in manufacturing is to prevent injuries from incidental contact and not as you put it  Putting a helmet on makes it possible to hit someone with your head..1)An undisclosed portion of the people go against the rules or safety suggestions by manufacturers result in the want to take away safety equipment.2) Football plays over the levels of their safety equipments optimum protection.If I am understanding you right these are your concerns more or less?
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

Players changed their playing style with the introduction of the helmet. The helmet protects against incidental contact, but it also protects against injuries when doing stuff the wrong way. If we take away the helmet people will learn to do things the right way. The question is, are there more injuries because people tackle the wrong way, or is it because of the incidental stuff.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

If we take away the helmet people will learn to do things the right way.If helmets are taken away, the specific techniques (even if they're the wrong ones now) that the athletes trained for aren't going to change overnight.Compare it to taking training wheels off of a bike. Simply taking the training wheels off of a bike doesn't suddenly endow a child with the ability to ride without training wheels. That skill is developed while keeping the training wheels on the bike, relying on them less and less, and eventually no longer needing them.If there is merit to doing away with helmets, it's something that would need to be planned for ahead of time so that the players can adapt. Otherwise, regardless of any reduction in injuries due to improved form, there will be significantly more injuries in the period between when the helmet is removed and the new form is perfected and internalized. Even then, in the midst of a heated play it would be easy for a player to slip into one of the old habits that assumed the presence of a helmet.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

Ok, remove them in the offseason.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

I think I disagree with your approach because you are removing the helmets to change play, rather than adjusting play. Would you remove guns from everyone to target crime? It seems to go about changing the outcome by targetting the wrong thing. I mean helmets don't cause people to go head first, people do! ;)Levy et al20,43 reported that the introduction of laws to control the use of the head in blocking and tackling, and the implementation of NOCSAE helmet standards in American football, has resulted in a 74% decrease in fatalities and 84% reduction in serious head injury since 1976Heck we have made adjustments in the past, apparently football was a pretty tough sport before. I don't see the merit in throwing the baby out with the bath, we can keep the equipment and work within their specs.I am pretty adverse to limiting anyones liberty because of misuse by a few, on any subject really. I feel the idea of safety standards being to low in professional football not a bad angle on your side of the issue. The style of play in American football is conducive to repetative stress injury and head injuries like concussions. I am still seeing this solved by only changing rulings though and not getting rid of safety gear, things were pretty rough before modern equipment. If anything is a driving force behind the issue it isn't the helmets but the organizations that breed this culture where athletes pay high prices later in life.http://m.bjsm.bmj.com/content/39/6/314.full?sid=2d318215-1cd4-4781-a0a7-9575a7fdef2d
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

Well, I can't argue against your data at all. I think I heard Mike Ditka say they should get rid of helmets.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

The data has some interesting stuff about rugby too. Noticeably the less injuries than american football. Heck lets not change football but switch to rugby.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

To be clear I do think football needs to change for safety. I just don't agree with that method to enforce a change.Really the US just needs to take up futbol and the metric system....get it over with.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

In other words without a helmet, it would be impossible?
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

I know people who head butt frequently Just hit Google images and search headbutt and you'll see a large number of people who like to headbutt as an average attack. If you're trying to say people don't headbutt unless they are wearing a helmet you're wrong.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

I was talking about you personally. Idiots on Google don't count. We can justify a lot of crap if we look at morons on the internet.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

Me personally doesn't matter, because me personally wouldn't hit someone with my head even if I were wearing a helmet, nor would I hit someone with my anything if I could help it. What those 'idiots' on google prove, is that this is a thing people do, headbutting that is. Disproving your theory that removing helmets from the equation will remove headbutting from the sport.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

You personally does matter because it would involve a thought going through your head. I guess not then.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

It's not important to the grand scheme, because I'm not a football player.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

I am forced to switch sides. I think we need football players to wear helmets to avoid ending up like you. ;)
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

One word: rugby.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

What does rugby have to do with football players wearing helmets?
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

Rugby players don't wear helmets and are just fine without them.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

For some values of just fine, sure. To be fair, only 5 and 7 would have played out differently with helmets, but there is plenty of other protective gear eschewed by rugby players.Rugby is also played differently, emphasizing endurance more than explosive power. Gridiron, with its system of downs, puts a larger emphasis on explosive power.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

It isn't my opinion. I can't follow up with anything. I just understand how rugby is related when talking about helmets.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

So I repeat. What does this have to do with football? I'll add, that they are different if that was not gathered. One could also say basketball players don't wear helmets, or for another contact sport where helmets aren't mandatory there is lacrosse. I had to check to make sure that was true since I can't recall seeing lacrosse players in helmets. It turns out they have a helmet for one of the players, just like rugby.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

It is a valid argument to say that if basketball players don't wear helmets then football players don't need to wear helmets.It is up to you to determine if the reason why helmets aren't needed in basketball is related to football. The same goes for rugby.Rugby doesn't use helmets.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

I don't see why. Basketball and football are different.If it's up to me, do you mean as an individual, like are you questioning me, or are you saying society has to decide. (legitimate question, I'm confused here)Again, rugby and football are different.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

This argument makes no sense. If we can't take the information we learn from one place and apply it to another place just because the 2 places are different then we would be lost as a species. Being different doesn't mean anything. Are they different enough that it doesn't matter, and why? High school and college are different. Does that mean college shouldn't have teachers?
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

The difference between your teacher example, and my statement that they are different, is that for schools, a teacher is a requirement for it to even be a school, but a helmet or no helmet rules does not classify any sport as being the sport.Using your logic we could say all sports need a ball, since even though they are different they are both sports.My statement they are different, is insisting that the rules, and the game play are different thus different equipment is needed apparently. High school and college are different, thus different teaching methods are used. They have their similarities but they also have their differences.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

My statement they are different, is insisting that the rules, and the game play are different thus different equipment is needed apparently.If you don't state why you aren't debating.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

What?
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

It isn't a debate unless you state why the 2 sports are different. Saying something is different therefore doesn't need to be discussed is stupid and not debating.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

Didn't know I need to state how football and rugby are different. I figured people had enough common sense to understand that, and if they didn't know at worst they could google the differences like I did.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

Didn't know I need to state how football and rugby are different.Only if you make the completely braindead argument that if 2 things are different they can't have similarities. I figured people had enough common sense to understand that, and if they didn't know at worst they could google the differences like I did.If you use google you find all the ways they are the same as well. The original argument was arguing that they are similar enough that football doesn't need helmets. You ignore all the similarities that you are so eager to use to shoot down opposing metaphors. It would be nice if you showed some scrutiny to your own argument.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

Who said they can't have similarities, I said they're different with the implication that the rules, and equipment needed would be different. No one still has not shown me how they are similar enough to validate the original statement.Using google you'd see how similar they are, and how different they are once again validating my statement, they are different so it's hardly a fair comparison. I find it funny how you say I should scrutinize my own arguments, when you won't even admit you're wrong even when switching sides.
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: Yes

Who said they can't have similaritiesDrawFour did. Go bug him. But, good luck, he doesn't consider what other people write. I said they're different with the implication that the rules, and equipment needed would be different.Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?No one still has not shown me how they are similar enough to validate the original statement.You didn't ask for that, why would anyone provide it? They both have tackling. Tackling is the reason why football needs helmets. Why is it that 2 tackling sports don't both have helmets?Using google you'd see how similar they are, and how different they are once again validating my statement, they are different so it's hardly a fair comparison.No, the statement "They are different therefore I have no reason to discuss the matter" cannot be validated. It is literally impossible to validate that statement. Under no circumstances is that statement valid.I find it funny how you say I should scrutinize my own arguments, when you won't even admit you're wrong even when switching sides.Really? Where did I say I was still right about helmets even after I switched sides?
Debate: Should football players wear helmets?
Side: No

...Why are the rules and equipment needed different for two different sports? Oh idk, maybe because they are different sports... maybe.If it is stated that they are similar enough to validate the statement "rugby players don't wear helmets" I should not have to ask for the similarities, they should be mentioned from the get go. It's a claim without evidence.Well I assumed you believe you were correct, since you picked a side in the first place, but I noticed that even after switching you debated me, on the other side with a condescending reply that was anything but admitting defeat.