BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Consent to Sex is an Implied Consent to Pregnancy

As Con has now forfeited R2, I am at a point where I am not sure if I should continue unabated or to save some information in reserve so that I can debate this subject with another opponent in the future. This is surprisingly challenging, not having an opponent's remarks to use as a foil for my own views. I shall instead expound on my previous observations in the hopes that debates and discussions in the future will benefit from this as a reference. In round one, I posited; "an act of consensual intercourse between two adults is an "assumption of risk" on their part (for pregnancy) because sexual intercourse is without exception the greatest known leading cause for pregnancy for human beings" and everyone knows (or should know) that they are taking that risk when they engage in sexual intercourse. Just as a person is held responsible when they assume risks that affect others by playing with fire, loaded guns or recklessly operating a vehicle; a person who knowingly assumes the risks for pregnancy is also directly responsible for the results of their actions when and if the risk they took is realized. This is particularly important when addressing the issue of child support. I would like to ask my opponent, PRO; "Who is responsible for a pregnancy; If it is not the couple who 'assumed the risks' for the pregnancy and engaged in an act that causes it?"I completely understand the counter argument that a person who tries to prevent a pregnancy by using birth control has expressed no want for a pregnancy to occur. Indeed, they have tried to avoid it. However, by their own actions in engaging in the only activity that naturally leads to pregnancy, they have compromised the integrity of their own decision. We all know that "actions can speak louder than words."Pregnancy is a "reasonable" expectation or consequence of having sex. In this example from an online legal dictionary[1], the point is very well illustrated;"Implied consent is never made clear. Rather, it occurs when a defendant relies on a plaintiff’s actions or words or the circumstances of the situation in order to determine whether consent exists. For example, suppose that the plaintiff played football for his college team. During a game, he was tackled by an opponent and thrown to the ground, breaking his leg. The injured plaintiff sues the player who tackled him. In this case, the defendant is likely to argue that the plaintiff consented to the injury. Even if the injured plaintiff never signed a consent form, he understood that one risk involved in playing tackle football is the risk of broken bones resulting from being tackled.A football player (like a person who tries to avoid pregnancy) avails him or herself of all the protective equipment they can use to avoid injuries. Helmets, pads, gloves, etc would seem to indicate that they are not consenting to an injury when they "assume the risks" of the game. However, as you can see by the example given... They do IMPLY their consent by engaging in the activity despite the risks. [1] http://www.rotlaw.com...
Consent to Sex is an Implied Consent to Pregnancy

Con asked; why do you think that "Consent to sex is Consent to Pregnancy"?Con, as I was hoping for a more considerate opponent (one that would help me to actually explore this issue and to present an abundance of information from both sides to those who follow along and hopefully vote) Regardless, Thanks for accepting my challenge. I will present my arguments in the hopes that I will receive a little more from my opponent that a question of "why I think" things. To answer Con's question using the same vernacular that he did;1. "I think" that an act of consensual intercourse between two adults is an "assumption of risk" on their part (for pregnancy) because sexual intercourse is without exception the greatest known leading cause for pregnancy for human beings. Every over the counter birth control we have comes with the warning that they are not 100% effective in preventing an unwanted pregnancy. This assumption of risk by both individuals implies a known consent for the pregnancy because the risks for pregnancy were known (or should have been known) and the parties chose to gamble with that as a possible consequence of their actions. In the opening challenge, I posted: "I will take the Pro side and argue that an act of consensual sex does amount to 'implied consent' for a pregnancy and my opponent (Con) will argue against that conclusion."I look forward to Con's counter arguments in the negative.
Consent to Sex is an Implied Consent to Pregnancy

As the title suggests. This is a debate about whether or not an "assumption of risk" for pregnancy in an act of sexual intercourse between two consenting adults amounts to "implied consent" for the pregnancy itself. In short; "Consent to sex is Consent to Pregnancy"This argument assumes 1. That the sexual intercourse was consensual2. That the parties involved were of sound mind and of legal age3. That that the risk (for pregnancy) is actually realized.4. That there is NO legal or moral expectation that the pregnancy must be maintained. ONLY that it was 'impliedly' consented to. Reference:Assumption of Risk http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...Implied Consent http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...I will take the Pro side and argue that an act of consensual sex does amount to 'implied consent' for a pregnancy and my opponent (Con) will argues against that conclusion.
should people under 18 be able to play violent video games

true, drug addicts would not tell their kids right from wrong, but I am mainly logical, so I find it harder to think outside the box here. But, drug addicts would likely not have enough money to buy violent video games(what with all of the drugs). Bad people would not tell their kids right from wrong either, but we just have to trust that the people who buy them are responsible enough to. Thank you as well.
should people under 18 be able to play violent video games

ok, thanks for keeping it simple. I agree that swearing in violent video games could be bad, but there is a volume button. if parents don't want their kids to hear swears they could just turn down the volume. Some kids could play a little too rough, but chances are, if parents tell their kids what is right and wrong, the kid will understand that killing is bad, and won't pay too rough. parents commonly keep guns locked up. Toy guns are colorful, while real guns tend to be black.
should people under 18 be able to play violent video games

Kids under 18 should not be able to play violent games because some violent games have swearing and if kids under 18 start to play it often then they would most likely to be influenced with that. And if they have killing in it and too much blood and gore then some kids will probably play to rough with other kids with toy guns. Then what if they see a real gun and think that it is a toy and they shoot a kid or a person then they would be influenced on the parents but it was the game.
should people under 18 be able to play violent video games

Ok, I played/play violent video games now. And I have since I was young. I will admit that I was really violent, but I got over that in around 2 years, I still play violent video games(pubG, COD, Gears Of War, etc.) but I am a much less violent person, in fact, I hate when I see violence where I go. (If you don't think kids should play violent video games, please join this debate, however, if you are easily angered, I suggest you look elsewhere. Please keep your arguments short and to the point)
Videos for people is the best Youtube channel ever.

About two months ago, I started debates about this thing, and ever since then, I've had to keep making new ones, because my opponents are inept. Please debate thoroughly and pose engaging questions. I look forward to our argument. Your round one argument will be the counter argument to the following: Videos for people is the best Youtube channel I have ever uncovered. It's entertaining. When I see one of his videos, I laugh, I cry, and so on. His videos attract me. I am drawn to them like a moth to a porch light. I don't know why, but I like them. He has a zany sense of humor and a firm grasp of the world around him. He is a hidden genius. I have never seen any videos like his and I don't think there ever will be anything like his. They are completely unique. They are so funny that I can't stop laughing. I don't know who he is, or what he's doing, but I can identify with him. His videos are unique. They are done using stick figures. The stick figures are badly drawn, and created using MS paint, but their quality isn't what matters. What matters, really, is what they do. They do hilariously funny things. they do romantic stuff, funny stuff. Nothing is too insane for this guy to tackle. Every video seems more bizarre than the last. But, although his videos are weird, they still seem somewhat normal, so the viewer isn't removed from reality. He uses normal language in his writing. There isn't any dialogue, only music. everything is written. His videos are the better than anything else I have ever seen. I am a devoted fan to the way he interprets things. Every video of his resonates with me. Videos for people is a genius. I don't know who he is, and I have no desire to uncover his identity. Knowing his identity isn't necessary to enjoy anything he makes. He's quirky, and I enjoy his videos. I await your first argument. Good luck! Please, only accept if you're willing to put some solid work into this.
Videos for people is the best Youtube channel ever.

I'm glad you agree, sir. However, there are still three rounds to go, so I'd prefer that you argue until then. You should not have accepted this debate if you agree with me. Please, stick around, and I'm sure that, with a little work, you can come up with some killer arguments. You can't simply declare me the winner. The voters have to do that, and if you refuse to debate any farther, then you forfeit and automatically lose. Please, keep debating, on your own side, with cunning and intellect, and I'm sure you could potentially win. So let's keep going. Please, post some long paragraphs in the next round. For now, I'll give one short paragraph about his brilliance: Part of the bizarre nature of this channel is its relative invisibility. That is to say, it is almost unnoticed. It's a hidden gem. I'm sure that he COULD boost his popularity if he truly wished to. I think, though, that his underappreciatedness is all a part of his game. He's asking us to think about it for a moment, and wonder if something is good simply because it's popular. His channel is easily better than any minecraft let's play or buzz feed video, and yet those videos have millions of views, and he gets twenty at the most. It's a type of psychological warfare, expertly pulled off. Some of his earlier videos parody Youtube culture. He does some goofy internet challenges, all within the realm of cartons, of course, and he shows just how stupid they are. he does three or so of these challenge videos, before moving on to better things. Below are links to a few: And, of course, I couldn't let the topic go without talking about one video which I think, in particular, describes the idiocy of Youtube in brilliant simplicity. That's all I can list for now, But I strongly encourage you try to argue against me. Otherwise, you'll probably lose. I'm all set.
Videos for people is the best Youtube channel ever.

I agree... his works are that of an intelligent person, who is able to mix emotion, morality, drama, compassion and parody in beautiful pieces of short documentaries with simple means of passing the barrier of understanding of his viewers. It is truly brilliant, but I can not fulfill your request that I write 3,000 words, for I have nothing else to say... it's simply brilliant. I declare that you win this debate.
Videos for people is the best Youtube channel ever.

You are very good at philosophy, sir. However, I would prefer that you stick to the topic at hand. Your argument could be put to some good use in another debate. However, I prefer you stick to the topic at hand, or you won't win. I'll give you some reference material. His channel can be a bit hard to find, so here's a link to it. If you're wondering what this debate is about, just click here, and you'll see: https://www.youtube.com... It's all very stupendous, in my opinion. He only has 4 subscribers, and yet he persists in making short, one minute or so videos. They're all very enjoyable. They border on the wildly absurd, but never quite go off the edge. Very brilliant. Here are three for you to study, followed by my explanation of each one: 1. Rubik's Cube (based on a true story) Here, we see art at its most poignant form. It's funny, but it's also immensely sad and filled with emotion. It's in the form of a documentary, not merely a short sketch, so we become enthralled by the plot and the characters. The concepts presented within it are interesting, and, unlike the other videos on the channel, it has a moral. It was only published very recently, but within it, we see the type of drama that he can stir up. We also see that, even without motion or audible dialogue, we can enjoy something. It slows down our attention spans a bit. 2. The Letter Movie This, one of his earlier works, is very nice. It's a scintillating parody. Often, he seems to deal with current topics. In this one, he takes the most hated animated film of all time, The Emoji Movie, and puts a unique spin on it. Although none of the characters are human, we feel compassion for them nonetheless. He also uses wordplay in quite a few areas. Definitely one for the ages. If I could pick one video to show to an alien about the emoji movie, this would be it. 3. Spongeborb in a nutshell This, without a doubt, is one of my favorites. This guy evidently notices the flaws in Spongebob, and he's not afraid to admit them. It's a great parody, in which he points out several plotholes with the show and invents cheap knockoffs of all the characters. It's not simply a parody, though, because it's written with some brains. The music he uses is particularly fitting. I'd almost rather watch the parody than the real thing. Those are three examples. Look at them, sir, and tell me why they aren't great. Afterwards, we'll get around to some more good clean discussion. Please, post at least 3,000 words. I admit, my title does use a bit of hyperbole, but he's one of the best, anyway. Superb.
Videos for people is the best Youtube channel ever.

If it were the case that humans psychologically were attracted to the same type of entertainment, we would not see the variety that we see, there would only be an universal form of entertainment. It is our cultural, religious, political and philosophical views that shape our thoughts about the world, and that includes entertainment. For this reason, I do not believe that you can be correct in stating that one specific form of entertainment is the absolute best form of entertainment.
Corporatism does not equal Capitalism

You forgot that most companies are owned by capitalism, such as Google and youtube, both are thriving due to the freedom given by the government, you say that capitalism has failing at such companies, I also wish to remind everyone that there is not on corporatism on the map, all of the countries that are corporatism is seen as capitalism, because they gave the companies FREEDOM to make the companies, and the companies made by the government are because that the rules apply to them as well, "At this point in my argument, I have proved that corporations have no place in a free unregulated market" what proof? You didn't show any links so far when this is said was that the government was strict, and that corporatism has paid itself for its own personal gain, isn't that all companies? They get the money from the consumers not the government, and you have not listed any companies like this Finally, you say that you need strong ties to the government to make a company, when capitalism has the same thing, you need to be connected to the government to start a military, you need to be connected to the government to be mayor. And you need to be connected to the government to sell tanks, planes etc.
Corporatism does not equal Capitalism

Corporatism can't thrive in a free market. Corporatism is a small bunch corporations that have a monopoly in a field where small companies (or small corporations in the legal sense) have virtually no access. In short, smaller the business, harder to cope with the costs that a larger company can afford. We're not talking leadership politics here, rather economics. Yes, it is true that in Communism a small bunch rules, but that isn't exactly the case. In a free market, anyone can create a business. In Corporatism and Pseudo-Communism, you must have strong ties in politics if you want to get your business to have lower regulations and politicians to eliminate your competition at that point, that the only other competition is the corporation that owns the other half of the market. In Communism, obviously, there is no business. The state demands production from you and gives you something return. Capitalism combined with outsourcing, indeed makes a society where everyone cooperates. But Corporatism is companies working with the state to increase their own wealth, they do not care to pay taxes, they can afford it while their competition can't. Either way, the tax money will be invested in them, so it's a double win. Communism is of course, people working as slaves for the state, which entitles them in return to a small fraction of the common benefit, the rest is exported.
violent video games should be banned

That is true. However, kids who play these games are not mature enough to understand the link between video games and the real world shootings. So they play the game, but they do not know that the fake gun they are firing can actually be used to shoot a person in the real world. However, I have many friends who played violent video games at a young age, and they have never used any violence they could have "learned" in those games. And I have seen many games rated Mature that are not violent.
violent video games should be banned

You have referenced a study from 2007 which showed that violent video games don't have negative affects but since that study violent video games have become bloodier and more realistic. I read an article and the author quoted "Video games may not be the root of school shootings, fights or any other violent acts from teens or children but they are contributing to the mindset that these actions are okay". There are many video games rated mature that underaged children play which causes aggression.
violent video games should be banned

They get anger out by trying to kill a person that is not actually real. Therefore, they will not hurt actual people. You know people that play violent video games and got sucked in. However, that is just people you know. Yes, I have been hearing about mass shootings lately. But, according to ijreview.com, the shooter in Newtown, Connecticut, did not play any video games as a child. According to Science Illustrated November 2011, soldiers use violent video games to cure their stress.
violent video games should be banned

you said they help get your anger out, how? many things could take stress out but to use it on something that is insulting to people in the army is just not respectful. I know many people who played many violent video games and got sucked into it. then they went out and got bb guns and Airsoft guns and now they want to get a gun. the gun that someone might get after violent video games won't be for hunting and wont even be for protection. you've been hearing about many mass shootings lately.
violent video games should be banned

1. Violent video games can improve our economy with high ratings. 2. Violent video games provide a safe outlet for angry feelings. (2007 study). 3. Violent video game ratings are going up, while murder rates have gone down. 4. Violent video games show violence, however people who play these video games do not use this violence in the real world. Refute to opponent's arguments Violent video games can do good because it gives people a chance to let their anger out.
violent video games should be banned

1. it desensitizes kids' sense of life and others lives 2. it is a direct insult to all men who serve in the army because as the person in the army are fighting in the army to serve their country and you are sitting on your couch laughing when someone dies 3. it leads a path to getting a gun to kill people and show off to friends 4. violent video games ratings have gone up, and so have shootings and gun related killings 5. violent games can only do bad and cant do good so what is the point of them
Conservative versus liberal (I will have conservative view)

If the Sperm and the Egg is considered a live then a woman going through her period could count as killing life and so could masturbation, in fact by this logic blow jobs could be considered cannibalism, but that all sounds perfectly normal to conservatives.An egg has NO chance of being a human without being fertilized by sperm. Sperm has no chance of being a human without fertilizing an egg. Therefore, the above things you mentioned are not depriving of life. Once two people have unprotected sex there is a chance that life is forming considering no one can tell just when life begins, there is always a chance you are killing a precious, innocent, young child.The conservative Pro here makes another classic move that conservatives do, ignore basic logic. If a conservative declares a woman pregnant two weeks before she is actually pregnant, does that sound like the right political view of what pregnancy is and should be defined as? In response to this the conservative focuses only on the fact that "hey, if she's not pregnant, she cant get an abortion" and fails to realize how f*cked up the entire situation is.Well, my opponent points out this situation when talking about abortion so I was just wondering how Arizona saying a woman is pregnant two weeks before she is even pregnant can relate to the subject. Me saying if she was not pregnant then there would be no need for an abortion is simply showing that this argument has no standing when debating abortion. "Gay Marriage and interracial marriage are nothing alike. Yes, the are both dealing with marriage..."Another classical trademark of conservatives are contradicting themselves almost within the same sentenceI was just comparing and contrasting. By the way, I think you left of the second part of the sentence.Closing ArgumentsMy opponent uses offensive words and pictures to get your vote when all I have done was provided you with facts. Conservatives and Liberals are very different in many ways. This whole debate focused only on 3 issues of Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Taxes. Hopefully, by reading this debate you have drawn your own conclusion if you haven't already about which is a better path to get to a better America. I enjoyed debating this issue and hopefully I will find myself debating with you again!VOTE PRO!!!
Debate.org should have a mobile app.

Imagine yourself at school or work and its break time and you want to go to debate.org. Well right now, you can't because you have to be on a computer. You could still do it on mobile devices, but you would have to access the mobile site, which doesn't have as much features as it does on PC/Mac. I think Debate.org should have their own mobile app for this very reason. It could be available for iOS and Android for either Free or $0.99. With it, you would have access to all of its features as it would on your computer, and the best part, its ON THE GO! If Debate.org were to get their own app, it would change their business drastically on a positive note.