BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America needs to crack down on illegal immigration.

Do not exaggerate the extent of the immigration. I just wish you would have explained what is so bad about the immigration to make it a crime. Yes it is a crime no matter what I say. That is not what I was asking. I was asking what is so negative about illegal immigration to make it a crime but you failed to answer that. I am trying to say that the crime is good and we economically rely on it being committed. I can not do much to argue what is the law because the law is the law. I just am arguing the intent or justice of the law. I am really disappointed in this debate. I had hoped for a true discussion. You have not defended your position. I was hoping for and expecting a two way discussion with a lot of information but I was disappointed. Thank you for your time.
should 15 year olds get to say when they go to bed

I'm glad that your experience is so positive, but you can't support the assumption that your experience is typical. http://sleepfoundation.org... I can't help but wonder if your daily performance wouldn't be enhanced if you had more regular sleep patterns. But your case is not the norm, and we have to argue from data, and not anecdotes. http://well.blogs.nytimes.co... Please read the whole articles.
keeping a baby after rape

Thanks for the debate ConI canola imagine how important this topic is to some people.Which is why we're debating it.*After Rape*Babies go after just about anything you place near them, so finding a baby after rape isn't that difficult.That's because finding rape in the home isn't that difficult; it's as common as having french fries for dinner.Babies watch you, with all of the rape you've exposed yourself to, and they want some too.This isn't a reason to get rid of your baby!Babies imitate what their parents do.Why can't they be after rape like you've been your whole life?Perhaps your baby's genetically predisposed to going after rape, so they can't even help it, I mean, what's been drawing you to rape?For me it's potato chips, but for your baby, it could just be that he/she likes what he/she sees.If you're chronically allowing rape into your house, the baby's gonna go after it; it's hard to turn down rape.Curse you chicken wings!Anyway, I see no problem with there being babies after products fried in rape oil, and I fail to see why this would compel a parent to put their child up for adoption or get rid of their child.Could you imagine?A - "Hey why did you give your child up?"B - "The mother f*cker wouldn't stop going after my chips!"I mean, this is ridiculous, clearly a baby after rape is not grounds to get rid of them; the hypocrisy should be obvious with those fried chicken crumbs on your face.Yeah, it's like we expect out children to just avoid rape altogether, yet we continue to enjoy it right in front of their face.*Responding to Con*Pro mentions:"Keeping a baby after rape can be a hard decision."My response:No it can't be a hard decision, just keep the baby!Even if it's after rape, which we agree you allowed in the house, keep the baby; there's nothing wrong with the kid.Pro continues:"Its not common for a woman to keep a baby [after rape]...Most women either have an abortion..."My response:How can you have an abortion when the baby is crawling after rape?I would also think that a baby's propensity for fried culinary items wouldn't preclude it from staying with the mother.*Conclusion*Rape is a plant cultivated for its oil rich seed and is what Canola oil is comprised of.Most fried foods are fried in rape oil (Canola Oil), which necessarily brings rape into your home if you keep fried foods.Definitionskeep - retain possession of.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...baby - a very young child.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...after - in pursuit or quest of.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...(#3)rape - a plant of the cabbage family with bright yellow heavily scented flowers, especially a variety (oilseed rape) grown for its oil-rich seed.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...rape oil - an oil obtained from rapeseed, used in foodstuffs.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
keeping a baby after rape

Keeping a baby after rape can be a hard decision. Living with that fear, that hurt and the hate towards a person, plus having their baby can be a bit overwhelming. Its not common for a woman to keep a baby after being raped. Most women either have an abortion or give the baby up. Some times if the woman does keep the baby she tends to treat the child different due to the fact that she/he is a rape baby. other might abandon the baby or grow hate for the child as it gets older. Think about it. Looking at your child, who looks like their father, a man who raped you. how would you feel for that child? How can you love someone who looks like a monster who took advantage of you? Its possible but then again it takes time, which takes patients.
Whaling

First, I will respond to my opponent's forth round comments, followed by a summary. Even if we do grant Whales the same rights as cats and dogs, we allow people of other cultures to eat cats and dogs in their own lands. And other cultures think that it is horrible to eat cows, or pigs, yet we continue to eat cows and pigs. As for the IWC, it should be noted that it is not a legal entity which passes legally binding laws. As stated in their Catch Limit section, "As Norway has lodged objections to the relevant items in the Schedule, [strong]it has exercised its right to set national catch limits[/strong] for its coastal whaling operations for minke whales. The Commission passed a Resolution calling on Norway to halt all whaling activities under its jurisdiction. " Now, the other nations are free to setup sanctions against Norway (and Japan for that matter) to pressure them to stop, but that is up to them individually. Now, going back to Nations creating laws, obviously creating laws by themselves is impotent if they are not enforced. That becomes the biggest thing, to enforce those laws. Since the market is so low to begin with, simply cutting the subsidies and moderate enforcement of the laws would likely solve most of the issues, be it from keeping an appointed Quality Control individual on board to make sure the whales are indeed killed humanely and to code, or to simply offering whistle-blowers sufficient protection from backlash. In conclusion, we can see that while current whaling practices are outdated, inhumane, and un-necessarily violent, an out-right global ban is not the best option as there is no reason that the whales should be given global rights over every other non-human animal. Thank you,
Whaling

A1) You make a decent point on this part of the issue, but I would like to point out that, relative to it's size, the shrew has the largest brain of any animal [1]. The humble shrew is far from the most intelligent in the Animal Kingdom, proving that brain size does not necessarily measure intelligence. That being said, the complexity of the brain may be more telling. Humans and primates have what are called spindle cells. Spindle cells are believed to be what allow us to love and feel emotional suffering, the thoughts and feelings that supposedly make us human. Whales, it has recently been discovered, not only have these cells, but have an estimated three times as many as we do, even with brain size considered [2]. Whales have had spindle cells twice as long as we have. Dolphins don't even have these cells, despite their remarkable intelligence. Whales have been proven to have very complex communication abilities, even a social culture. They can pass information and ideas over vast distances through a kind of SONAR. They can learn from each other, and that is culture [3]. It couldn't be more obvious to me that the whale's intelligence is remarkable. These animals deserve rights over the barbaric practice of killing them. Modern whaling has been improved upon many times to make it as humane as possible, but the fact of the matter is, it will never be humane. Whales are simple too big of animals to be killed quickly by any practical means. Due to their obvious intelligence, they must be protected. 2) The Japanese whaling fleet has taken hundreds fewer whales in recent years due to environmentalist obstructions, and even some of that whale meat has gone to surplus. In the past two seasons, they have taken less than half of their quota. Iceland and Norway take very few because of the low demand and, as I said before, shut down for the 2007season [4]. In Japan and Norway, whaling has been kept alive through government subsidies for quite some time [5]. It just doesn't make any sense to keep whaling, cruel or not. There is simply no reason to cause so much pain and suffering for a dead industry. Mercury in whale meat may not kill, if it did people would not eat it. But if it effects early brain development, it should NOT be in Japanese schools [6], where many developing brains could be affected. That closes one loop-hole on an already very short list of outlets for the surplus. Whaling is simply not worth the potential damage it could do. It must be condemned as a thing of the past. *We have also not even begun to debate the firestorm of legal issues surrounding whaling. If my opponent not wish to, that is acceptable. [1] http://www.kk.org... [2] http://www.newscientist.com... [3] http://www.dailygalaxy.com... [4] http://www.earthweek.com... [5] http://esciencenews.com... [6] http://www.digitaljournal.com...
Whaling

I will argue that so long as Whaling is limited to environmentally neutral (meaning that pre-cautions are taken so that whales are not hunted to extinction), it should be allowed. As this is an open resolution (a debate about a particular topic, rather than a particular resolution), the BoP should be shared by both debaters. Since I am Pro, I will go first. A1) Whales should be granted no more rights than other animals in the sea, such as fish, sharks, and crabs. All of which, is socially acceptable to hunt (though the term "hunt" is not used, that is what we do) as long as care is taken not to over-fish the population. If the same cares are taken with whales (only hunted at certain times of the year, have whale spawning programs, and other limits), then they should be granted the same treatment. If they are to receive any kind of special treatment, there must be justification for that special treatment. A2) Whale is a large source of food (as in food per unit), and so you have the potential of feeding more people through killing less animal life. As opposed to chicken, which several died, just to make that 10 piece KFC (Koopin be with us) original receipe. Allowing the hunting of a single whale can save the lives of hundreds or thousands of fish, or other small animals. So if preserving animal life is part of the goal, eatting whale is a step in the right direction. I will start with just these and pass this on to my opponent. Thank you,
Final Fantasy VII is not the best Final Fantasy ever, and it was a steep turn downward from FF6.

I will someday finish 7. Kefka still stands as the most despicable and insane boss of all time. I will admit that 6's story is a little weak in the second half of the game because it becomes nothing but sidequests, but nothing is better than the World of Balance and first part of World of Ruin. 6 had unique characters that had their own commands. Sabin's Blitzes, Gau's Rages, Mog's Dances, Edgar's tools, etc. Every character brought something to the table that identified them from one another. In my opinion 6 and 4 are the best.
Final Fantasy VII is not the best Final Fantasy ever, and it was a steep turn downward from FF6.

Even if Kefka did destroy the world, Sephiroth practically did. In his final boss form he had a move that shot comet through every single planet, until it hits you for crazy high damage, you cant be more epic than that. As the game goes on, the story of 7 keeps you guessing, with the realization of Cloud and Sephiroth's shady past. The shifting alliegances and interesting twists made the story a bit more unique than 6's. If you haven't finished the game, you haven't experienced the battles with some of video game history's greatest bosses, The Weapons, the satisfaction of beating Ruby Weapon is unparalleled. But the main thing that keeps Final Fantasy VII one step higher is the amazing orchestral soundtrack that an SNES can't compete with. In my opinion 6 and 7 are the best Final Fantasies, but 7 bests 6.
Final Fantasy VII is not the best Final Fantasy ever, and it was a steep turn downward from FF6.

Kefka was a better villain than Sephiroth. Not only did he attempt to destroy the world, he in fact destroyed it and caused the creation of the World of Ruin. 7 wasn't the worst game, but the story wasn't that amazing. However, I admit that I haven't completed the game, so perhaps I have missed some of the story. 6 had an epic story with many characters fates being intertwined and I believe that 4 and 6 are the best Final Fantasies of all time.
Final Fantasy VII is not the best Final Fantasy ever, and it was a steep turn downward from FF6.

I am not actually this user but a friend of his. Final Fantasy 7 is by far the best final fantasy. The story itself is the most unique of the whole series, containing actual pertinent themes. The music is some of the greatest in any video game, particularly the orchestral "One Winged Angel". The materia system gave an interesting new take on magic by having abilities affect stats as well. Aeries' death was an extremely memorable twist that made Sepheroth a villain actually worth fighting. To say the characters aren't good is vague and incorrect. As stated above, Sepheroth was an epic villain, Red XIII and Barret were BAMFs, and Cloud had a gigantic sword. Their costumes didn't follow the fantasy stereotypes of earlier titles or the strangely feminine trend of future games. While 6 was a good game, the story, amount and quality of side quests, and the amazing music all combined to make it just that 1 step better.
Final Fantasy VII is not the best Final Fantasy ever, and it was a steep turn downward from FF6.

Final Fantasy 7 is not an amazing game. The polygoniest technologies used for said game are outdated and bland, and quite honestly, the sprites from Final Fantasy VI were more visually appealing, even if they weren't in 3-D. The character in 7 were annoying, especially Cloud. All he seemed to do was shake violently for no reason and have weird dreams or something. Final Fantasy 6 had 12 awesome characters (well not quite 12, but at least 10.) Final Fantasy 7 fails to reach that level of greatness. The only people who worship Final Fantasy 7 are what I call FF7N00bs, those raised on FF7 who refuse to try the earlier incarnations because they are rather young and immature and are turned off by the poor graphics.
Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965)

In Williams v. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co., Plaintiff Williams has an issue with regards to the contract that she signed since 1957 due to her defaulting on an installment payment. The plaintiff has been a customer of the defendant for quite some time now and has purchased many items over the course of time having knowledge of the terms presented before her. Defendant Walker - Thomas Furniture Co. is an operating business and it is up to the customer to decide if they would like to do business with this company meaning that Williams had a choice. It is the customers responsibility to follow the contract. Since plaintiff Williams was irresponsible on her behalf, she should put herself at risk for her items possibly being repossess and she should be held accountable for the following reasons: (1.) The items still belonged to Walker - Thomas although the customer had it in their possession. Once the items were paid off, the title would belong to the customer. (511.1.4) (2.) Williams purchased a stereo set and due to this new purchase, she increased her own balance. (511.3.3) (3.) Williams as a customer is responsible for her payments and she was aware of the circumstances, having knowledge that she had an unpaid balance $164.00. (4.) Meaningful choice was on behalf of the company and Williams because she still consented to the terms even if she did not understand. If she did not understand, then she should have never consented because she was not being forced at any point in time. (5.) Therefore, the ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should not be in favor of Williams.
Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965)

Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, operates a retail furniture store in the District of Columbia, let individuals purchase a number of household items, for in which payments are to be made in installments until the balance is paid in full. A contract in which is set forth the value of the purchased item and purported to lease the item to the purchaser for a stipulated monthly rent payment. A contract in which is provided, in substance, that the title would remain in Walker-Thomas until the total of all monthly payments are made equaled the stated value of the item, at which time appellants could take the title. On April 17, 1962, appellant Williams bought a stereo set of stated value of $514.95 and defaulted shortly on one of her monthly payments. (1.) The business practice of the company was unconscionable. 2.) Knowing her financial instability, Walker-Thomas still chose to offer her the stereo. 3.) Walker-Thomas knew about Williams"s previous debt of a defaulted balance of $164.00 that needed to be paid off from her first previous installment loan. (4.) Therefore, having a second argument with the purchaser would have been irrelevant; due to the fact of having a prior last purchase the appellant had reduced the balance in her account to $164.00 from the purchaser last defaulted account with the company. At the time of this new purchase, her account showed a balance of $164.00, still owing from her prior purchases. The total of all the purchases made over the years in question came to $1,800. The total payments amounted to $14,000, so why would Walker-Thomas a "business of profession" make an unconscionable act of lending out a new contract for a stereo set, while knowing the purchaser owed money in the first place, having a defaulted installment account from the past. So from this, you can that Walker-Thomas contain poor business habits and poor decision skills as well.
Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965)

Well, I am not going to end the argument by asking you a question. I definitely agree with your definition of unconscionable. However, it was not on behalf of Walker - Thomas Furniture Co. If Ms. Williams did not comprehend the legal terms, she could of simply just not sign the contract or in the previous round, she could of asked questions in regard to the legal terms because she is the customer and as a company, it is there duty to explain whatever the customer does not understand. By asking, it shows that she is concerned about the terms within the contract and so forth. Impulse has absolutely nothing to do with signing a contract because when something unfair takes place, are both going to blame impulse? No. They are going to blame each other and then the court will take it from there. In this case, the court did not even have a ruling on whether this contract established was unconscionable or not. The text just gives examples of other jurisdictions handling these kinds of cases and when these cases occur, this contract cannot be enforced because the inequality of bargaining power. When an agreement is in place, both parties are responsible for meeting their promises and if they are irresponsible, then that is when the consequences come in. If Walker - Thomas was unconscionable in terms of establishing such a harsh contract, then Ms. Williams has every right to take that next step by taking them to court for taking advantage. However, Williams defaulted and that is when it was became an issue. It did not occur to her and there was no problem with the contract. Now that her items were possibly about to be taken, it was a problem. Walker - Thomas did their duty as a company by doing business with a customer and making it clear before hands how their business works. So, Ms. Williams has full knowledge and rule should be in favor of Walker- Thomas Furniture Co.
Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965)

Unconscionable, is the referring to a contract or bargain which is so unfair to a party that no reasonable or informed person would agree to it, and that right there is the true definition of Walker-Thomas. Ms. Williams didn"t understand the legal terms which was stated in the contract provided by Walker-Thomas Furniture Company. It was true that Ms. Williams didn"t need the stereo set, but wanted to have it, but how many times does that happen to individuals that get what they want instead of need. It"s the reaction of impulse, and Walker-Thomas was reacted as well in the act of impulse because he wanted to make a sale, even with the prior case Ms. Williams contain. Now I know that if you don"t have the money at the moment don"t buy the item, but that"s where credit comes in, no matter what form of credit it is. At times we do buy goods with credit when we don"t have real money at the time to cover the charge of the goods we demand, but we can"t control our financial future, anything can happen, such as not getting paid on time, loss of a job due to a closure or financial crises by unexpected expense. We as humans can control the directions we take, but at times we react through impulse and without unconscionable actions, yes, were humans and it happens to all of us, no one is perfect just like this case.
Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965)

What makes Walker - Thomas so unconscionable? If Ms. Williams did not understand something stated in the contract, then she should of questioned or asked for an explanation on what she does not understand. If she did not agree with the terms or did not like the response to her question, she could of took her business else where as well. When you state certain individuals such as Ms. Williams, who else are you referring to and are they in the same predicament as Ms. Williams? If they are, then it is their responsibility as well to follow the terms granted before them. I do understand that promises are not always meet. However, why would you break a promise and risk all of your items? Ms. Williams is not in the best financial stability and it is stated in the text her background information. However, this is where organization comes in because it is important to put your needs before your wants. Did she really need that stereo set? Based on the text, she has seven children and Walker - Thomas was aware of her financial position which is all irrelevant because it is to make her feel like she is the victim when she put herself in this situation. Even if the contract was to be deemed unconscionable, she put herself in this situation and now that her items are at risk of being taken, she tries to take herself out of it. Absolutely not. Ms. Williams like I said had full knowledge of this contract and if she spotted any unfairness, she should of spoke on it from the beginning. Like I said, Ms. Williams needs to be more responsible and more organized. We don't know if she needed the stereo for a specific reason. From reading the text and just knowing her financial stability, it is just like is a stereo really necessary because now she has defaulted and not only can the stereo be taken away, but possibly all the items that she possessed since starting business with Walker - Thomas. Things happen such as her not having the money when it was time to make a payment. However, whenever she did have the money, she could of put that money to the side and saved it for when the payment date was approaching or possibly pay it ahead of time.