BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teenagers are expected to act like adults, yet are treated like children

I understand what you are saying. I am now an adult, but I remember being a teenager and now I often work with teenagers. Our culture has created this pressure to map your life out from a young age. Try to remember that this pressure, while it feels very real, is deceptive. While a plan of some kind is good, plans can and do change. The overwhelming majority of people either change their career path after high school or choose a second career later in life. Try to relax a little. Make a plan, but recognize that it is not set in stone. Yes, teenagers are chastised for not doing homework. Teachers and parents are right to expect teenagers to do the work. However, they are also recognize that teenagers are not adults and don"t treat them like adults. A teenagers would be chastised for not doing homework. An adult would not be chastised for not doing work. An adult would simply be fired. Also, while some teenagers do believe that they have more chores around the house than their parents, I have never once come across a case where this is actually true. Teenagers rarely recognize just how much work their parents do Teenagers do not have the same amount of freedom as adults because they do not have the same amount of responsibility as adults. This is as it should be. Minors need that cushion to make mistakes as they learn and grow. It is the responsibility of adults to make sure that those mistakes have as limited of consequences as possible. Try not to take for granted how much the adults in your life sacrifice for you good. Seriously. If you are teenager living with one or both of your parents then right now go give your mom and/or dad a hug and tell them how much you appreciate them.
Teenagers are expected to act like adults, yet are treated like children

The teenage years are incredibly tough, responsibility wise. Although we may not have large responsibilities (such as mortgage or financial strife) we have others. Teenagers are expected to plan, and begin to put in place our future career goals. We are expected to know our future aspirations, and goals. The education system puts a multitude of pressure on this, paving our way to a future prestigious career. Teenagers are expected to do well academically, and although we are treated like children (chastised into doing said homework) we are expected to act maturely. Teenagers are also expected to begin working within careers (like an adult would do) and become more financially independent. Teenagers are also expected to do more chores around the house- whilst balancing these other things. Whilst some teenagers might have few chores, some have an exuberant amount such as cooking dinner for the family, cleaning the house and taking care of siblings/animals. For this, we are still treated like small children- not allowed to have a proper social life and/or any independent belongings (not allowed to have a car in fear of independence).
Teenagers are expected to act like adults, yet are treated like children

Teenagers are not adults. They are not treated like adults and they are not expected to act like adults. Being an adult is all about responsibility. Adults pay their own bills (mortgage, insurance, healthcare, etc.), balance their own budget, work whatever job is necessary to keep food on the table, and take full legal responsibility for everyone in the household. Teenagers do not (and should) have this kind of responsibility. If teenagers want to be treated like adults then they would have to act like adults, and one week in that life would remind them how easy they have it as minors.
Teenagers are expected to act like adults, yet are treated like children

Teenagers are treated like children, yet are expected to act like adults. During school, teachers, principals and authority figures alike cannot go one day without a large lecture on how 'high school' students are in-fact young adults and should act accordingly. Students- although not mature enough to become fully independent- understand this, yet even within the school environment we are treated like children. Teachers check planners, searching for parent signatures to signify that they have 'checked' our homework. We must raise our hands and ask- in front of the whole class- if we are allowed to go to the bathrooms and still are not allowed to take any personal belongings incase we are doing anything 'bad' or 'rebellious'. Teachers look over our shoulders, day in, day out with regular bag inspections and such. This is simply unfair. Teenagers might not be fully mature, and we realise that we need guidance to further develop both physically and psychologically, yet the extent teachers and education departments go to, to inspect us is ridiculous. Teenagers are treated like children, yet are expected to act like adults.
Naruto vs. One Piece

A few reasons why I prefer One Piece over Naruto 1. The storyline in One Piece is much bigger and much more diverse, unlike Naruto, which storyline since day one has been limited to a simple Good vs Bad storyline, only introducing two main villains. One Piece on the other hand is much bigger and deeper, simply first introducing a kid who wants to be a pirate king, quickly evolves into the major question of "What is good and bad" with multiple story lines and arcs introduced, and some only hinted at, with the mysterious "void age" the upcoming "War To End All Wars" and just barley introducing the half way point of the grand line, the story shows no sing of slowing down, unlike naruto, which is quickly coming to an end. Also with the story, i see the lessons, morals, and characters are simply better. 2. The Animation Narutos downfall is the animation, the first series and manga had good animation, but when Part 2 or Shippuden came around the animation went off the deep end, with crude and plain animation from both the anime and the manga. While one piece has kept the same quality of animation since CP9, which also allows for the show to reflect serious and funny moments. 3. The Characters Narutos characters are high in number and low in point, most characters hardly ever scratching the surface of development, one dimensional, with no back story save for maybe the main and a few side characters. This in turn shuts off any real connection for me, hardly ever batting an eye when one of them get hurt or even dies *cough*Neji*cough* One piece on the other hand, every character main and even side has had some form of back story introduced, which really makes some serious connections. Especially the pirate crew, who all had terrible pasts (Luffy losings his ability to swim, resulting in shanks losing his arm and almost dying, Zoros only friend dying when they both promised to be the best, Nami's mom getting murdered, Ussops mom dying, Sanji almost dying, Robin's very existence a sin, Brooke being forced to see all of his crew die, Chopper losing his friend) Their goals for being the best or for something better sets up some serious connections with the viewer and can be easily related to.
is abortion ok

I will start by debunking the most common arguments against abortion: Reason rebutted 1. Life begins at conception. There are many things wrong with this. One, an infant born the day after conception will not survive, no chance. Two, the qualifications for life are reproduction, adaption, growth, and homeostasis (maintaining stable body conditions) though an infant can grow, sure it can grow. Conversely, an early born or unborn infant cannot maintain homeostasis on it's own. It needs to be in a womb or in an incubator, even in an incubator the infant will have unstable vital signs. Adaption, very limited adaption as implied by the homeostasis issue. Finally, reproduction, we should not not be silly an infant or fetus cannot reproduce, especially a female. Reason rebutted 2. It is murder is the killing (taking of one's life) another person or life form taking of one's life implies that the person must be alive. Reason rebutted 3. It is unconstitutional (because of life liberty and the pursuit happiness [emphasis on life]) the other ones, liberty and the pursuit of happiness say that a person may do whatever they choose in the pursuit of happiness. Reason rebutted 4. Is against the bible. The bible does not talk about abortion. Reason rebutted 5. Adoption is a thing. Yes but if the parents don't tell them early it could be mentally scaring, also if they do not get adopted, they will go into the foster system or an orphanage, not sure which of those two is worth. Reason rebutted 6. We need to protect the innocent. If you are conservative against gun control and if you are also against abortion because we need to protect the innocent. If so why are you against gun control, 85% or more of gun death in america are innocent children. http://www.nytimes.com... I will now make arguments for abortion: Argument 1. Rape. If a woman is raped and gets pregnant, she should not have to bear that child as a constant reminder of that tragedy. Furthermore, sometimes the rapist will come back for custody or visitation rights. http://www.cnn.com... Argument 2. Medical reasons, fetuses have stem cells which are cells that can grow into anything, the healing possibilities are endless. Argument 3. Quality of life, if someone is homeless or too poor the child and the parents will have terrible quality of life. Argument 4. Death. Sometimes birth will kill the parent, therefore, the birth should be avoided. Argument 5. Disease. If the kid has a disease which would cause painful death, the birth should be avoided.
should abortion be legal

My opponent brings up these sources urls, but they don't really take you to the exact source of where these things are said. I could simply say CNN says thing A and say it's found at CNN. com, but this doesn't help too much in this debate. So, unfortunately for my opponent, we have to through those out the window. PTSD can lead to these things, but we have to remember that they have the right to refuse. The Doctors for Life International has shown that it is possible and these doctors have a constitutional right to refuse service of abortions [1]. Their jobs may be on the line, but the US Department of Equal Oppertunities has stated that people, these doctors included, cannot be fired due to these reasons [2]. In this debate, my opponent has yet to prove that the fetus is alive or that it is murder to begin with. With that, we have to see that my opponent's case has no standing here in which my opponent has yet to do. This portion alone warrents a victory, but I shall continue for the sake of the debate. The statistic numbers is quite simple, these individuals weren't adults until that time period. That's a 20 year time period, so people who were forced to be born before Roe V Wade were becomming an adult and entering into the world's work force. People even thought it would be the crime decade, highest of all time, but it wasn't [3]. This in the case negates the adoption option as it shows as these options were available before Roe V Wade, the crime numbers were up despite the issue has come up. My opponent has not demonstrated that they expierence any pain, so throw that out of the debate. I have previously shown and this point was dropped in the debate by my opponent in the last round, that these babies are not alive, nor US citizens via the Constitution, so it would not apply to them. The cancer portion was brought up with no factual backing, so please throw it out of the debate. With that we can see that Abortion is an issue of Privacy for the women, my opponent has dropped this argument. It has also reduced crime by preventing unwanted children in the world, showing that they would've had it better under abortion than to suffer in this world. My opponent's arguments of PTSD and doctors flows in my favor as they have the right to refuse service and cannot be fired. Even if they all refuse the right to service, abortion would drop to 0 resulting in what my opponent would want without an outright ban. With that, I thank you and urge you to vote Pro! Sources1. (. http://www.doctorsforlife.co.za...)2. (. https://www.eeoc.gov...) 3. John J. Donohue, and Steven D. Levitt, "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001 (Despite admitting to an error in one of this study's tables, Levitt has stated that "the story we put forth in the paper is not materially changed by the coding error. " See Steven D. Levitt, "Everything in Freakonomics Is Wrong! ," freakonomics. com, Nov. 28, 2005)
should abortion be legal

I shall go over my opponent's R2 arguments in the order he has presented them in. Even if I was aborted, wouldn't have felt anything as I wouldn't have existed here in this world. My opponent has yet to try and prove that abortion is murder or that the fetus is considered to be alive at that point. With that, my opponent's argument here is negated. In regards to the wishing for abortion, that is an Appeal to Emotion Logical Fallacy, please through this argument out. I would like my opponent to please cite his url source in regards to the psychological harm. Until then, please through this argument out of the debate as it does not have any factual backing in the realm of this debate. The choice of the unborn is irrelivant in this case. They are unable to make the decission as the Federal Government rules children, who have already been born, do not have the level of rational thinking for some time. Even in this case, there is nothing in which the fetus can do to respond to any options here. Not sure why my opponent is having an issue with the refusal. Some doctors do chose to perform abortions, but if no one wanted to do it then abortions would plumet. Isn't this what my opponent would want in this case? My opponent has yet to bring up stats on adoption. The proof shows that those who were not aborted and unwanted, which includes those put up for adoptions, caused crime to increase substantially. Until my opponent brings up evidence in the contrary, you have to flow this argument to my side of the debate. My opponent has yet to prove that the fetus is alive or that it is murder. He drops several arguments involving the crime rates and the Right to Privacy. His argument in PTSD works in my favor. With that, my opponent has no arguments left on his side. With that, I thank you and urge a ballot in Negation to the resolution.
should abortion be legal

I going to first look at my arguments and prove their validity and then look at my opponents arguments. Lets start with the one about innocent babies being murdered. Lets put yourself in the babies situation for a second. If you are the baby about to be aborted whether you can feel it or not, it is still murder. Even if the baby didn't care, you can never justify murder on an innocent child. And how many people would grow up and look back at the situation and think, "Oh I wish I had been aborted as a baby." No one wishes that. Another argument I previously had was doctors suffer from PTSD. This is still a valid argument. True, no one is forcing the doctors to abort a baby. But someone has to do the job. If all of the doctors all of the sudden refused to abort a baby, there will be no one to do the job. Another argument that I have is that according to procon.org it causes psychological damage to the person who gives birth to the baby. One of the arguments that my opponent brought up is that it protects the right of privacy in that they own their own body. This is invalid because the baby does not make the decision to be aborted. It is being murdered without a choice. If it does not have a choice and the baby is innocent, that is murder. I think one of the greatest values in life is protecting the innocent. Abortion is doing just the opposite. If you don't want to have a baby, then don't have a baby. If this happened then you would never have to do abortion in the first place, and cause all of these doctors to have PTSD. The other argument that my opponent had was it reduces crime. If someone has a baby and knows they can't support it, then they can send it to a family that is able to support. So this way, the baby can be raised properly and can be taught how to grow up and make good decisions. Because a lot of people decide to keep their baby, and raise it unproperly, the child can grow up and commit crimes due to not be raised properly. In conclusion abortion should be illegal. Whether the baby feels it or not, it is still murder. Because murder is a violation of human rights, it causes PTSD for doctors, and should therefore be illegal.
should abortion be legal

Abortion should be illegal and I can give a few reasons. one, if you were the baby that was killed from abortion, how would you feel if you were that baby? There are just so many innocent babies that have been murdered because of abortion. Abortion is simply unfair to a baby. Another reason abortion should be illegal is because doctors have to live with PTSD. Doctors every day who don't believe in abortion have to kill innocent babies and often suffer from PTSD. It is not fair to make doctors kill innocent babies that they don't want to kill. By making abortion illegal, no more doctors will suffer from PTSD, and no more innocent babies will be killed. Abortion is a harm to babies with absolutely no benefits. For these reasons, abortion should be illegal.
Yo mama joke contest

Yo mama so ugly she scared the SH!T out of the toilet! Yo mama so fat when she went to KFC and the cashier asked what sized bucket you want, she said "the one on the roof." Yo mama so stupid she sat at a stop sign for 3 hours waiting for it to say GO Yo mama so ugly when she tried to take a bath the water jumped out Yo mama so fat she has more chins than a Hong Kong phonebook
Yo mama joke contest

Sorry I was too busy reading your liability disclaimer to see your puny little note about "rules" and "technicalities." Yo mamma's so fat, I'm not gonna sugar coat it cause then she'd eat it. Yo momma's so fat, when she bends over we miss 2 days of sunlight Yo momma's so ugly when she joined an ugly contest, they said "Sorry, no professionals." Yo momma's so fat, she makes Free Willy look like a tic tac Yo momma's chest hair is so long, its growing all the way down to her dick.
Yo mama joke contest

First of all I said 5 jokes per round, so you lose 7 points Yo mama so fat she got arrested for carrying 10 lbs of CRACK Yo mama so stupid she sold her car for gas money Yo mama so short she committed suicide by jumping off the bed Yo mama so ugly when she looked in a mirror, the reflection said " I quit!" Yo mama so fat when she gets killed on call of duty you get a 5 kill streak
God exists, and loves you.

>> "but here is my single argument: faith. one thing that CANNOT be refuted. at all." There is of course a difference between blind faith and reasonable faith. Whether or not faith is valid is a function of whether that faith has been instilled by generational socialization or if that faith is a result of the examination of the world and reason. In any event, your faith that god exists and loves us has nothing to do with whether or not he actually does. If I have faith that unicorns exist and love us, it does not follow that they actually DO exist and love us. >>"how do you know so many bible verses if you are so atheist? your loaded dude." It's pretty widely known that many atheists can quote the bible better than a lot of theists. >>"they build a relationship with god, so that they wont have doubts when they see bible verses like the ones that you've presented." That's not really a good thing... blind faith blinds one to the horrors of the verses I present. >>"no, i'm not going to adress the technical problems or existense of god." Why not? Your debate is about existence in part... Simply acknowledging there are problems is enough to being to undermine your position. >>"if god didn't exist, i would totally screw up my life to the point where i'd probably die from a drug overdose. because i would have no conscience, and nobody could guide me." Quite simply not so. Conscious, morality, guidance... all independent of god. Morality is a function of social contract and biology, not god. We don't call Sally fat because it's not acceptable behavior. Why? Because it makes people with connections to Sally mad at us, and that's an existential threat. ************************************************* Throughout this debate my opponent has refused to engage in debate concerning the problems of the existence of god. The problem of evil, in particular is enough to demonstrate that an omnibenevolent god and the evil present in the world is at the very least highly unlikely, if not impossible. The bible verses I have produces clearly show instances of an un-loving god. Read and vote.
God exists, and loves you.

alrighty! so. its like almost midnight. and guess what? i have to be awake at like 4 tomorrow so i can go to chicago. and i only have like, a few hours left to write a response. i didn't even know what debate.org is, but yeah now i do. i know how it works! and i'm actually a really good debater. i do LD and... yeah well i won't brag. anyway! uuuugggghhhhhhh ok so in my last rounds i probably seemed really crazy and radical! yay. now i'm sleepy. yay. btw(i probably will "forfeit" this debate because i will be out of town for a while) but here is my single argument: faith. one thing that CANNOT be refuted. at all. sure go ahead and use all your technicality. pull out your bible verses. how do you know so many bible verses if you are so atheist? your loaded dude. but anyway, every person that chooses to accept god must have faith. they build a relationship with god, so that they wont have doubts when they see bible verses like the ones that you've presented. they know that god is their shock absorber, stress reliever, antidote for pain. and for one reason. because he loves you. no, i'm not going to adress the technical problems or existense of god. people find god through faith that he exists, not numbers or science. if it was proven scientifically that god exists, everyone would believe it. but god doesn't want that. god wants to see who will acutally listen to the things he says. without discovering jesus' dna somewhere in the east. also, going back into the miracles thing,.. those miracles are some of the ways that god expresses to you that he exists. and loves you. so you agreed that you do have morals. if god doesn't exist, why do we feel bad for calling sally fat? why do we know when we did something wrong, then appologize for it? if god didn't exist, i would totally screw up my life to the point where i'd probably die from a drug overdose. because i would have no conscience, and nobody could guide me. everyone would be doing bad things. and we'd all die. god made consciences, aka the holy spirit for us. because why? because he loves us. even fat sally. anyway faith presides over all. if people vote that you win this debate, then high five. but i won in my heart. i hope you learned something from what i said though. just a different perspective. adios!!! tchuss! aloha! goodbye!
The Iraq War was not justified

I am a person who was, until about a month ago, in favor of the Iraq war. I actually discussed my support for the war with the Hitchslap over PM when I saw his debate with LordKnuckle. However, I have come to the conclusion that the Iraq war was not justified. My research of the Hitchslap's arguments show me that while they are convincing on the surface, they do not hold up to strict scrutiny and factual information. Hence, I challenge him to a debate on whether or not the Iraq war was justified. Since Hitchslap is trying to justify the war, and I am affirming the resolution, the burden of proof is shared between the two of us equally. My opening statement in Round 2 will be a refutation of the arguments that Hitchslap made in Round 1 of his debate with LK. Major factual claims must be sourced with a link that is viewable for free, and dropped points are concessions. *The first round of this debate will be for my introduction, and for Hitch to accept. He can make an introduction like mine if he wants to. Let the games begin!