BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Should Remove the Age of Consent

I believe the age of consent is neccessary for numerous reasons. It is used in a court of law to determine if an adult has performed a sex act on a child. I do not think it would be an acceptable scenario for a twelve year old girl to be in a consensual sexual relationship with a thirty year old man. This is a case of child abuse regardless of whether the child agrees to the relationship or not. The age of consent also effectively discourages children from sexual relations and reduces risks of sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and the potential for sexual abuse. It also protects children from adults legally grooming them into sexual relationships and helps prevent children feeling pressurized into having sexual relations.
Condoms Yes or No

Yes? Having sex accidentally, like if they are drunk or not in their selves. Sorry for grammatical errors, for your information my errors are more understandable than your previous argument, shame on that rebuttal because it's out of the box of what we are debating here. So I will be expanding my prvious arguments and I will also answer those foolish rebuttals because it's some what low or something. So continuing what I said earlier about what if they are drunk, so my opponent must not be reading my examples. I exampled those rapists, drunk people, and depressed. So depressed people are somewhat out of there thinking or what not. So the effects of that is accidental sex. I will not be expanding my rebuttals more because he didn't present any new arguments and his very first arguments was already debunk so there's no reason for me to present a very extemporaneous rebuttal because he didn't set any good rebuttals to my arguments and he only rebutted my grammatical errors and rebutted my arguments non sensly. So I'm guessing my opponent is not really a debater in real life because he debate in a very bad way, he does not have an experience of a real life debate, what I mean is The Asian Parliamentary Debate or a British Parliamentary Debate. So I guess that explains everything: like he debate very bad, rebutting badly, can't speak English clearly because we can't understand what is he pushing in his prvious arguments specially on his first argument and on the second argument it was wasted because he used his turn very badly because he rebutted it badly. And he didn't even set a new argument and I don't know if he even know what "Rebuttals" even mean. So therefore, I will end my speech and I'm expecting he will rebut my previous rebutles and my arguments because he debate so badly. "No hate just Debate" because in real debates, there are a lot more descriminations and intimidations than here. During the previous rounds my opponent didn't set any good argument. Again "no hate just debate"
Condoms Yes or No

So according to my opponent, "...Have sex accidentally" I'm sorry but this phrase had me so dumbfounded you can not have sex accidentally, another strong point that I have is that she had a few grammatical errors that were a little too obvious. I had said in the comments that this was a joke but seeing how i'm already in this I will try to finish and leave it to the public to chose the victor, good luck to my opponent I was a little to broad with round one so I will go more in depth of what I meant. My topic I had started had no specific point to it so I do apologize but we will say if they should be used or not.The fact that people have STDs which in case should be gone over with the couple that is about to experience their "fun times" together a sex partner should be known if any of those diseases are contracted, but a condom can only protect so much and seeing how most people don't on a normal basis use condoms during a blow job it is still ineffective to stop disease spread, sorry this had to be short.
Condoms Yes or No

Starting this debate by explaining what is a condom? A condom is thin rubber covering that a man wears on his penis during sex in order to prevent a woman from becoming pregnant or to prevent the spread of diseases. So who will be the persons inside this debate, they are the people who are depressed, who always want to have sex, The People who has a plan to rape, the people who wants to feel pleasure and of course the actors. So I will be setting this debate in an age set of 18 years old and above and the only place to sell is the pharmacy, stop over shops or franchised shops like 7 11 or mini stop and some place where it is secured or what not. So your question would be, how will you secure that this will be followed, we will set a bill or a law and we will assume in this debate that it has been set. So the law will state that 18 year olds and above are the ones who are allowed to buy this and those persons who will not follow the law will be under RECLUSION PERPETUA, reclusion perpetua means life imprisonment. Or if not reclusion perpetua, how about SILIA ELECTRICA, Silia electrica is a chair where you are getting electrified. So let me proceed to my first argument, my first argument is Protection: of course just like what I said earlier it is a rubber to prevent pregnancy, so of course it is very useful to the people who are depressed, they only want to have sex and to feel pleasure at the very end of day, for them to avoid or escape depression even just for one night or some hours. Because as we can see in our paradime a lot of people are depressed and they want pleasure. A big example are the prostitutes, assuming that it has been legalized, what's going to be their protection right? Condoms is a very big must to the prostitutes because without this condoms the female prostitutes will be pregnant and the males will get the girl pregnant. so now let me proceed to my second argument, my second argument is just like a constructive to my first argument and that is Avoiding Pregnancy. So being pregnant is some what depressing right? specially if it is unexpected or accidentantly. So of course being pregnant unexpectedly is again depressing that can cause big problems like ABORTION and SUICIDAL because those people who arent yet ready to become a parent will be paranoid when they realize that they are pregnant and there parents will get mad if they will know that there child is pregnant or what not, so that can lead to abortion at the very end of the day or suicidal because of course they got paranoid and they don't know what to do. Let me give you an example, there's this guy and a girl who will meet in a secret rendezvous and they are both depressed, let's think of a possible thing that will happen like what if they had sex accidentally or has a plan to have sex and the condom has been abolished or what not. Right? So that can lead to big problems like abortion and suicidal. So I will be continuing my speech later on
Sexism

It sounds to me like you are in a very hard position as your Mother wishes to wrap you in cotton wool to protect you from making mistakes she made. However, this is natural mothering instinct and not sexism. I would urge you to do what you feel is right for you, whilst keeping yourself safe. By the way, the word you're looking for is 'discrimination' against women, not 'racism' against women. I'm still not entirely sure what this debate was meant to be about, but I would suggest in the future that you term your debate title in a way that gives it more clarity, for example: Sexism is a big issue. Or whatever you would like the debate to be about. Good luck!
Sexism

No it doesn't make it sexist. But is it just a coincident that they happen to say I'm a blonde (who are known as dumb blondes) at moments I make a mistake or say something stupid. My hair color does not describe me, so neither should the fact that I'm a girl. I don't make my decisions based on my sex. I want to play football, my mom won't let me because she doesn't want me to get hurt, but she lets my brother play who just so happens to cry when stepping on a lego. She just doesn't want me to play because I am a girl. I want to go out with my guy friends or I wear shorts that go above my knee she suddenly thinks that I am going to make the same mistakes she made. She tells me straight out that I am a slut or that I act like a slut because I act like a girl. Even my family is discriminating and degrading me and even my brother whom they frequently tell to "grow a pair" or "be a man". He is 9, he is going to do things that make him seem weak but that is because he is 9. At school I am frequently sexually harassed and discriminated because I am a girl and even at work. This isn't a joke, sexism is basically racism against women. So again if racism is wrong then why not sexism.
Sexism

My opponent has obviously misunderstood me. I quote " If you try replacing gender in a statement with a skin color or a hair color AND IF it sounds racist OR ridiculous, well it's probably sexist." As you see I have capitalized AND, IF, and OR. Yes the brunette sat on the bridge does not sound ridiculous or racist because it wasn't meant to be sexist, It was just a statement. If it was meant to be sexist well it was poorly executed. This however is seen as sexist. " You're such a girl" "You're such a blonde" or even "You're such a WHITE GIRL" These are things I hear everyday.
Sexism

I've been doing research on sexism for my persuasive essay and I would first like to point out that sexism isn't just for women but for men as well. The definition of sexism is prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. Some examples are, when you hear the word rape, what popped into your mind? Unfortunately most of you if not all thought of men. Well a dear friend of mine who is a male was raped by a female. How often do you hear of that? not often probably. When you hear the word(s) slut, whore, prostitute, ect.... what do you think of first? Again most of you if not all thought of females. I don't blame you, I mean a credible resource that a lot of my peers use have the definitions of those which I will share with you. Slut: 1. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute. 2. Obsolete. a dirty, slovenly woman. Whore: 1. a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet. Prostitute: a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; whore; harlot. Males were mentioned not once in these even though we have male strippers, male prostitutes, and "players" who are a stereotype of a male slut. I don't think I should be called a slut/whore/prostitute just because I am female. But yet everyday I school I am called vulgar names. When I don't answer they tell me I have no sense of humor. Actually I love to laugh and have a really good sense of humor, but when I personally am put down because I have a vagina I'm not going to laugh. when you continuously degrade me and tell me I will amount to nothing but being good in bed (yes I have been told that at 15) it takes all my will not to cry. How would men feel if you had your future planned out based on your sex? you can be anything you want, but if I want to be the president of the United States? what are the odds of that right now? Thanks for reading this :)
On the authoritative minimum wage.

Minimum wages are economically stupid government policies. The "authoritative minimum wage" is said to be "authoritative" to distinguish it from the hotly debated "natural" minimum wage. Wage is always less than the value of the hourly produce of an employee's labour. Otherwise, the employee would not be hired. Because of the nature of wage, we can divide the effects of minimum wage into three categories: -When the value of the minimum wage is below what would otherwise have been paid -When the value of the minimum wage is above the real value of the produce of labour -When the value of the minimum wage is between what would otherwise have been paid and the real value of the produce of labour If a minimum wage is lower than a job would otherwise pay, then it has no effect. If a minimum wage is higher than the economic value of a job, then it eliminates that job from economic feasibility. If a minimum wage is higher than what a job would otherwise pay, but lower than the economic value of a job, then the costs of labour increase. If the costs of labour increase, the costs of products the labour produce increase. If the costs of the products that said labour increases, then the price of everything goes up. This price inflation balances out the effect of the minimum wage, so that the real (as opposed to nominal) value of the minimum wage drops again below the price labour would have otherwise paid. So, in no case can a minimum wage have a positive effect. Further, the third said case causes politicians to again raise the minimum wage, eliminating more jobs and creating more price inflation. I await my opponent's case (as he is PRO, he shall present first). I will present the bulk of my case next round.
This House supports the death penalty!

My opponent falsely claims that the death penalty is reserved for murderers. In the Federal Death Penalty act of 1994 it is stated that the death penalty can be administered to people committing crimes of terrorism or drug trafficking which does not necessarily mean murder. [1] Pro did not understand the analogy. The human was the penis in that analogy, the condom was the jail. Condoms, like prisons, fail to keep what they hold in. This does not mean we should kill all criminals/cut off all penises to solve the problem. Pro claims that murder is only justifiably punishable by death. I would object to that claim. On one hand the death penalty takes you away from the world silently and painlessly. Never to remember what you did yesterday and never again to think about tomorrow. But a life sentence forces you to live out the rest of your years in a small cage with limited access to commodities like books and tv. These inmates will look out small windows and think about how they will never be free to do what they want because of the actions they took. There's time to reflect on the ills they have committed and the things they will never enjoy because of it. It would also be tough to face aging and death in a harsh environment like prison. Analysis over both punishments shows that life in prison is more severe, psychologically, and physically.Pro brings up a very interesting point by talking about overcrowded prisons and how implementation of the death penalty can help solve this issue. Unfortunately by his standards this would mean that the majority (or at least a third) of convicts would need to be murderers. Currently there are around 1,518,559 people in federal prisons. Only 7 percent were charged with violent crimes. That's only 106,299 out of the 1,518,559 people. [2] Not to mention even if those small numbers (not all of which are murderers) were put to death the wait on death row is lengthy and many die before it is their time to go. "It is better to execute those who deserve it than to be forced to release dangerous offenders into society because prisons are overcrowded by people serving life sentences."I found this statement silly, the US has no problems with spending money, It should seem obvious that more prisons would be built and that they would not just let these people run amok. I have successfully refuted my opponents arguments and given ample reason as to why the death penalty should not be used a method of punishment. It would be unfair to let the criminal just die instead of have to live an unsatisfactory life thinking about the penalty they have earned and why they earned it. Thank you and merry Christmas. Sources: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...Hey, at least Wiki isn't biased.
This House supports the death penalty!

Well... Today's Opposition says that he has only to refute my resolution, but he has also to tell the readers why wouldn't we accept the death penalty! Secondly... There are no such things as jails for murderers. In a jail there are murderers, burglars and others, BUT the death penalty is applied just to murderers of a high rank, so we don't want to kill the burglars, because they have never taken a life so they have just a prison punishment. Another thing is that very WRONG analogy that he made. He said that you can compare a HUMAN with a CONDOM. A human is complex entity, spiritual and physical! Comparing humans to condoms is such a STUPID TING!!! Lastly I want to give you my last 2 arguments: Firstly, the worst crimes deserve the most severe sanctions; first-degree murder involves the intentional slaughter of another human being. There are crimes that are more visceral, but there are none that are more deadly. Such a heinous crime can only be punished, in a just and fair manner, with the death penalty. As Time put it, 'there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital punishment that is simple and satisfying enough to feel like human instinct: the worst possible crime deserves no less than the worst possible punishment'1.Human life is sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in place that ensures that those violating that fundamental precept are punished. Capital punishment symbolizes the value and importance placed upon the maintenance of the sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence would fail in this duty. 1 Time Magazine. "The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye". Time. January 24, 1983. Accessed June 30, 2011. Secondly, the death penalty can help ease the problem of overcrowded prisons in many countries, where keeping people for life in prison contributes to expensive and at times unconstitutional overcrowding1. In 2011, California prison overcrowding was so problematic that a district court panel ordered authorities to release or transfer more than 33,000 inmates. This decision was held up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which argued that the conditions in the overcrowded prisons are so overwhelming that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment2. Similarly, in the United Kingdom two thirds of prisons in England and Wales have been deemed overcrowded3. As such, the death penalty may be preferable to life in prison since it helps alleviate a pressing problem in the criminal justice system. It is better to execute those who deserve it than to be forced to release dangerous offenders into society because prisons are overcrowded by people serving life sentences. 1Sanchez, Mary. "California prisons: Cruel and unusual." The Miami Herald. May 30, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2011. 2 Martinez, Michael. "California officials: We'll fix prison crowding, won't free 33,000." CNN. May 24,2011. Accessed June 9, 2011. 3"Two-thirds of prisons overcrowded." The Guardian. August 25, 2009. Accessed June 8, 2011
This House supports the death penalty!

"Another thing I want to say about Opposition's way of debating is that he is based only on countering arguments. He never says why is it so bad to vote with the death penalty."Pro, he BOP lays with you. I am here to refute your resolution. "While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide, suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can receive1. Putting dangerous murderers in prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them. " Well yes the criminal may commit murder in jail. But according to your argument this would not be a problem. You stated that "When you commit certain heinous crimes, you forgo your right to life". So any criminal that commits a crime the state deems heinous has forgone their right to life. Thus if they lose their life in prison it is no problem because according to you they lost their right to life anyway. "The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from prison. Even the highest security detention facilities can have escapees2. Thus, the only way to be absolutely certain that a convicted murder can no longer hurt others is to execute them."Let me make an analogy. Even the most reputable and reliable condoms fail. But we don't cut off the penis because the condom may fail. "This does not devalue life, but rather affirms the value of the innocent life taken by the criminal"Or proves that a life can easily be disposed of and that the victims life contained the same value of the criminal. The death penalty does nothing to deter crime, asserts the states ability to kill, and makes equal the life of the victim and the criminal.
This House supports the death penalty!

Well ... what actually happened in this debate is that the Opposion never came in with an stable argument, unless the last paragraph about the state that kill its people, but what is actually killing people? Killing people means taking their rights to life. A state regularly abrogates people's rights when they intrude upon the rights of others. By sentencing people to prison, for instance, the state takes away rights to movement, association, and property rights from convicted criminals. The right to life should be no different. When you commit certain heinous crimes, you forgo your right to life. This does not devalue life, but rather affirms the value of the innocent life taken by the criminal. Certain crimes are so heinous that the only proportionate sentence is execution. As for the executioners themselves, there are methods of execution that involve multiple executioners which might reduce the associated psychological burdens. At any rate, no one is forced to become an executioner, and people who choose to take on that role do so with full awareness of the risks involved. Another thing I want to say about Opposition's way of debating is that he is based only on countering arguments. He never says why is it so bad to vote with the death penalty. And now I wish to pass to another of my arguments, by explaining how death penalty prevents the accused from committing further crimes. The death penalty is the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or commit further crimes while in prison. While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail sentences to commit homicide, suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since there is no worse punishment they can receive1. Putting dangerous murderers in prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them. The other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape from prison. Even the highest security detention facilities can have escapees2. Thus, the only way to be absolutely certain that a convicted murder can no longer hurt others is to execute them. 1 Murdock, Deroy. "A Sure Way to Prevent Prison Escapes." March 30, 2001. Accessed June 9, 2011 2 Davis, Laura. "Crime and Punishment: the view from a convicted criminal." The Independent. May 19, 2011. Accessed June 9, 2001.