BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teenagers should be tried as adults in court of law.

Hi there! I would like to challenge your position which is based rather thinly on adolescents knowing the difference between right and wrong, even though we cannot be certain of this even in respect to adults (who are held accountable regardless). This is not to say that I believe that felony-status/warranted crimes are right(not wrong), but rather that I recognize how the hypocrisy inherent in society/history, where the crimes are deemed justifiable for certain epochs/people, and not others, can skew/distort one's view of right and wrong/or adherence to it. I believe that adolescents are more impressionable/reactive to such hypocrisies, as this stage of human personality is directed toward seeking independence which is achieved by finding one's place in the world. Unfortunately however, the world that they encounter is fraught with unredressed injustice and hypocrisy, which is results in an acute existential frustration...lol! So i believe that they, like young children should be allowed a period of adjustment. Kudos on the your topic/claim! Thanks for reading and most of all.. Good luck!
Teenagers should be tried as adults in court of law.

Process: Round 1: Introductory statement of your position, and why you have those beliefs (no arguing yet) Round 2: Debate Round 3: Debate Round 4: Conclusion My Position: I believe teens should be tried as adults( Only for felonies) because they are developed enough to know the difference between right and wrong. Meanings: "Tried as adults"- Recognized as an adult during a court trial; meaning they can receive adult level punishments rather than being put through the Juvenile system Felonies- A crime involving violence that is more serious than a misdemeanor (Ex: Murder, Armed Robbery)
Welfare is an applicable stance for a Libertarian

I concede. Congratulations on your victory.I could attempt to refute many of the points made last round, but I do not see it having any affect. Even though I believe my case was clear, your arguments were better crafted and conveyed. It appeared that we were arguing very differently and we were unable to reconcile my ideological approach with your pragmatic one. I blame myself for my poorly written resolution and first round rule setting.I do not believe the judges will give me the victory, nor should they.Good luck next round, and sorry for the constant delays.
Welfare is an applicable stance for a Libertarian

Let’s get this tournament started!! I thought I would have a grander opening round, but this succinctly lackluster logic will have to suffice. In any society, there will always be those who are down on their luck, and these individuals will need assistance; there is no society that has no charity. So, what happens if charity alone is not enough? Regardless if the charity was unable to satisfy an individual’s needs or if the individual simply demanded more than was offered, the result is the same: they will resort to crime, most likely theft. Whether the criminal act is to satisfy desire or greed, or is out of necessity to feed themselves or loved ones, the result is they will result to force in an attempt to procure their "needs". What happens when these individuals resort to crime? They will go to jail or prison. Even the Libertarian Party’s platform sanctions the use of imprisonment [1]. While incarcerated, these criminals are given food, shelter, and clothing, possibly even education AT MY EXPENSE (as a taxpayer). I believe this premise is undeniable; those down on their luck are likely to resort to crime and, as a result, end up incarcerated being given food and shelter. Is welfare really any different? The purpose of welfare is to give the downtrodden what they need to survive, the very same needs that are provided to prisoners. The only difference between jail and welfare is that damages have to occur BEFORE any needs are met, possibly numerous crimes are committed before the prisoner’s needs are finally satisfied. Furthermore, if welfare is able to suppress this crime from occurring, there are additional benefits. 1. No shunning for being a criminal (harder to obtain a job) 2. Less clogging of court dockets 3. Complications to robbery are avoided, like murder 4. Less damages in lost time, property, and fewer victims 5. Less need for police force and prisons, so while tax revenue is diverted to welfare, it is diverted from other costs As stated, a libertarian is one who maximizes liberty, so it stands to reason that the government’s role is to maximize liberty while maintaining security. In this case, I need protection from another individual, not the government itself. I posit there is little difference between being taxed to house criminals or to prevent them from committing the crimes from ever occurring. Either way, shelter, food, and clothing are provided for at my expense. The ultimate benefit with welfare is the preemptive protection of my not being harmed by one’s theft; we can think of it as an insurance policy. Would I rather pay insurance to repay me for damages, or pay to avoid the damages in the first place? I think the answer is obvious, and not a contradictory stance. NOTE: For the record, my view of welfare is not the current system. I think if one wants welfare, they lose liberty (read: choices and freedom). They live in government buildings with limited access to the thermostat, are given food (no food stamps), and privacy may be limited. In short, the idea is to provide for them, but not make them comfortable. 1. http://www.lp.org...
Welfare is an applicable stance for a Libertarian

Definitions: Welfare: government aid given to certain people meeting certain criteria Applicable Stance: not contradictory to other views Libertarian: one who identifies maximizing liberty as the main factor in government's role and actions. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A MEMBER OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY, so no party platform arguments are allowed. The resolution is self-explanitory. As a self-proclaimed libertarian, I believe that government has a ligitimate interest to offer welfare as a means to maximize liberty. This debate is not whether or not I should be called a libertarian, nor is it the on the virtues of the welfare state; this debate is on whether a libertarian can not be in opposition to welfare.
Ancestry shall not be judged upon. Children shall not be judged from the acts of their elders.

2 Rounds. Yes, my name is Dank Meme and I am to be taken seriously despite such. Ancestry shall not be judged upon, as it prevents the child from being introduced to society as a normal just as all of us are. We have been taught not to repeat the history that the ancestors of ours have made, and it has made it to our advantage. Of course we hold true to our grandparents and parents, as we have learned to respect our elders. Yet, we are out of reach of the constant bickering we give and receive, from what people of a certain group have done longer past. It is not until we learn to respect others for who they are and not what their elders have done in the past, that we will be one step closer to closing the gap of profiling and prejudicial acts. - Dank Meme
School's clothing policy

Alright, let's take a look at how the debate has played out. In my constructive speech, I used two contentions. You dropped the first one, therefore you are agreeing with it. You rebutted my argument that "Student Dress can Impede a Student's Ability to Learn" by saying that if someone is "flirting harshly", the girl has a RIGHT to slap them. First of all this only proves MY point. You are providing an example of a distraction which is what my argument was. If a student is wearing something that distracts another student, it causes a direct problem on their ability to learn. If they are distracted, they aren't learning. You proved, and are CONCEDING that it causes a distraction. So you didn't effectively disprove either of my arguments. Right there we have to reasons to vote affirmative. Now on to your case. You first make the argument that the dress could shouldn't be strict because there is a need for tank tops. You then go on and extend this by saying that the whole dress code doesn't need to be replaced. At that point, you are affirming the resolution. As we are debating whether or not school's should enforce dress codes, you are affirming because you are not saying to remove the dress code, you are saying it just needs to be less strict. So your first contention helps my case. Your second contention addresses the bullying issue, however, in all of your arguments you fail to provide any reason that this connects back to the resolution. In your constructive argument you say that you were bullied "because of the way you walk." That has nothing to do with attire, and therefore has nothing to do with dress code. After I pointed this out you go on and say "...you're barely making any sense with my second opinion because I didn't say anything about me getting involved in a fight..." I never said this. You can look through each of my arguments, and when I responded to your arguments I never once mentioned you getting in a fight, I did however acknowledge that your argument did not link to the resolution. You then extend in your last argument and say that bullying is not necessary, and you're right, it's not. But that has nothing to do with the debate because you failed to prove that attire influenced by a dress code caused this bullying. So, your second contention can just be discarded. Since your first contention affirms the resolution, and your second doesn't relate to it. Another two reasons to vote affirmative. In conclusion, you dropped one my contentions, and did not effectively argue the other. Your first contention helps to prove my case, and you failed to link your second contention back to the resolution. So, in every way you look at it, the affirmative side wins the debate. ==================================================== Thanks for a good debate man! This was fun. By the way, here is a tip. Don't call your argumentative points "opinions". They are called contentions, this makes you look more professional, and opinions aren't really applicable in a debate. I have to say, you are a pretty good debater though!
School's clothing policy

I didn't say that the whole dress code needed to be replaced. I'm saying that some of the rules needs to be replaced. Tanks needs to be permitted because there's nothing wrong with wearing tanks I mean what's the point in banning it??? Your second opinion, I didn't only say "flirting" I said Harsh flirting. Third of all bullying is not f****** necessary, Just because they think it's funny to insult someone its still not so cool.
School's clothing policy

Okay, you're still missing the point on the water bottle thing. I'm not arguing that every student will bring a water bottle or that schools should try encouraging it. All I was doing was disproving your claim that schools shouldn't have dress codes because it makes students dehydrated. Basically, I was saying that your argument was nonsensical because the problem could be solved with water bottles. It would not be necessary to go the extreme of removing the dress code altogether. I never said you got involved in a fight. Look at my arguments, I talked about how the bullying problem stemmed from something other than attire, therefore it was not a valid argument against dress codes. Before we continue with the distraction/flirting argument I want to add the definition of flirting to the debate. Merriam-Webster defines flirt as: to show superficial or casual interest in liking. I never said harsh-flirting was the problem. But even so that isn't consider flirting, it would fall under sexual harassment, which has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. I said that it is a distraction, and therefore undermines learning at schools. Since the goal of a school is for students to learn (you never refuted this), we have to accept that anything causing students to be distracted as a problem. To solve the problem, a dress code can be implemented. Finally, a girl has no RIGHT to slap a guy just for looking. You claim that this is self-defense...it is simply not. Self-Defense: The defense of oneself especially in the case of a violent crime. "Flirting", as you so call it, is not a violent crime, and thus, there is no justification for physical violence. Allowing this to occur just creates an additional problem, which wouldn't even have to be debated if a dress code were enforced.
School's clothing policy

Well what do you say try encouraging the students to bring water bottles, because teachers tend to not tell the students to bring them so whatcha gonna do about that?? Since you're barely making any sense with my second opinion because I didn't say anything about me getting involved in a fight... Opinion 4, about that "harsh flirting" its one of the main reasons why some of the dress codes are strict because of flirting I mean a lot of students don't really care about that its just what teenagers are so what's the point if she asks you to leave her alone... then leave her alone, otherwise when teacher gets reported of harsh flirting they get a punishment other than it's that simple. Slapping a guy because he's flirting at her harshly then she asks him to stop she should have a right to slap the guy. besides it's really is her own decision to wear a skirt to school meaning that she was actually expectinbg for someone to flirt at her so what's point...
School's clothing policy

I think your misconstruing my point on the "water bottle" argument. I was not saying that students bring water bottles, just that if getting hot from clothes is bothering them, then they should. It is such a simple problem, and shouldn't be used as an argument to not have a dress code. As for your second argument, you clearly stated in your Round 2 speech that "I just recently gotten bullied by this kid, calling me gay, because of the way I walk." Thus, the fact that you were wearing skinny jeans is irrelevant. It is unfortunate that he made fun of you, but it was not because of the way you dressed, you implicitly stated that it was because of the way you were walking. Moving on to your final rebuttal, you provide no proof that self-defense is justified in the case of "harsh flirting". Secondly, as you are supporting the ability to "defend" yourself in this situation, you are supporting MY claim. I said that the was girls dress can sometimes distract guys and lead to a disruption of the learning environment. By saying that the girls should just hit them, you are furthering the distraction, and lessening the ability to learn. So unless you can justify the need for self-defense in the case of "harsh flirting" and also prove that it does not lead to a disruption of the learning environment, you cannot make the claim that my statement is false.
School's clothing policy

Okay, so let's take a look at each of your arguments. In your first contention, you argue that there should not be a dress code because students, specifically males, want to wear tank tops because it is hot out. You also link this to dehydration, and because of this students would be absent. Your main reason for this is students don't like to drink out of water fountains. There is a very simple fix to this, bring a water bottle. The learning environment does not need to be compromised simply because students are hot. And, if you don't buy that, according to your logic, this can be fixed by bringing a water bottle. In your second contention you seem to be arguing that dress code leads to students being bullied about their clothes. You also bring up an example that you were called gay. However, in that same sentence you say that the student that called you gay did so because of the way you walk. This does not prove that dress code causes bullying, but even if it did, dress code does not force you to wear clothes that get you bullied. Dress code just sets regulations as to what can be worn, such as pants length, or whether spaghetti straps can be worn. Students are still free to express themselves, simply within certain constraints. Finally, in your third contention you address my second contention, where I argue that attire can be a distraction. You're only refutation is that girls could hit guys if this happened. This does not solve the problem of dress code, it just creates additional problems by allowing physical violence, therefore this cannot be considered an acceptable solution to a lack of dress code. I would now like to address the fact that you never attacked my first contention, therefore I have to assume that you accept it. As such, you are conceding the fact that dress codes can positively benefit schools. Likewise, as I have addressed and refuted all of your contentions, the debate is in my favor.
School's clothing policy

1. Doesn't mean you have to be strict with students still. Because in my school guys want to use tanks cause in the fall it's really hot and it's still cooling down unless you want students to be absent because of dehydration, as you can see not very many students actually enjoys drinking out of a water fountain. It makes you feel like you're drinking after someone. 2. Let's talk about that bullying issue it's because of the clothes it's just regular insults to make a guy thinks he's so better than someone. Like hmm for instance I just recently gotten bullied by this kid, calling me gay, because of the way I walk. I'm like really I wish i could hit right ther right now but school says it's forbidden to fight i mean come on really. You can't really hit anything here that's not school property. 3. skirts I know that there happens to be some guys that tend take a peak or whatever so fascinating, I would just let the girl give those guys a hard slap. If they come crying to me I'll just laugh at their face and say, " that's what you get when u flirt at a girl in a wrong harsh way"
School's clothing policy

First, as Pro, I simply need to prove that school's should enforce a dress code. This does not necessarily have to include a uniform, just some sort of code, or regulations if you will, about how student's may dress. The point of a school is to learn. That being said, students should be allowed some freedoms, but they must not impede on the school's ability to function first and foremost as a learning environment. Contention 1: Dress Code Benefits Schools Without the distraction of obscene and otherwise inappropriate clothing, students are free to learn at their full potential. A researcher studying a high school in Texas made the following comment: "It is possible, based on our findings, that the benefits of a standardized dress code implemented and maintained over time may very well have a positive effect on student achievement." (Document 1) Contention 2: Student Dress can Impede a Student's Ability to Learn This is more of a logical contention without any studies to back it up, but the logic is clear, easy to follow, and can't be disputed. Consider a scenario in which a female wears a very provocative outfit to school due to lack of dress code. This would attract the attention of teenage boys, effectively distracting them. Would this not deteriorate their ability to focus 100% on the material being covered? The way to prevent this situation is to enforce a dress code so that student's cannot dress in a way that distracts other students. In conclusion, I have effectively proved that only benefits can come from a dress code. As there are not negative effects, why not enforce it if it has the potential to benefit students? For this reason, and all the others discussed in this case, I urge an affirmative vote. ===================================================== Evidence: Document 1: http://www.shsu.edu...
ERB #1: Mahatma Ghandi vs. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Note: Oh dear God, I feel so racist right now. XD ___________________________________________________ You had a dream that all men have equality,[1] but you're stereotypically ratchet like your nationality[2] You're just a fraud, everything about you lacks originality,[3] at least pretend to show some formality Harvest my words like the tobacco you sow,[4] you're just another kissazz so worship my cow[5] You ain't realize the time of change is now, so this speech finished and it"s time for me to bow Jump off a building like you did as a kid,[6] regardless of your acts this world's still a chess grid[7] You're just another slave for me to place on a bid, you actually have a Bible? Heaven forbid! Can't boycott your way out of rap, stick to your protests, you're half the debate on freedom of the press You made no progress, I'll devour you like watercress,[8] since you"re distracted by a white ho's breasts[9] [1]Reference to King's speech "I Have a Dream" [2]Ratchet: slang used for sketchy people usually of black origin [3]Martin Luther King, Jr. was born as Michael King, but his father changed it to Martin Luther, the name of a German priest. In addition, his speech was also found to have been unoriginal, having copied several elements of a sermon of Archibald Carey, a popular black preacher in the 1950's. He also plagiarized his dissertation for his doctorate degree. [4]When he was 15 and 18, King grew tobacco over the summers. [5]Indian stereotype in reference to Hinduism [6]King attempted to commit suicide when he was twelve. [7]Reference to racism between white and black [8]Reference to Gandhi's vegetarianism [9]King was attracted to white prostitutes.
ERB #1: Mahatma Ghandi vs. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This guy thinks he's got revenge He's titter tottering on the edge! Due to suicide he might be dead What the hell goes on in his head?! I've got a heart for most types of God designed people The white, the black, but Gandhi looks like an evil seagull! Denies Christianity but believes that Jesus lived equal! My friend here ain't right human cuz he's as bald as an eagle! Too scared to move a muscle, laying in his death bed cussing a lil I'm a certified doctor but Ima tell the truth and say he's bound to hell! I can tell he's eatin' off rations n' working at low-profit factory or mill Got a hold of him, crushin his glasses n' putting him to sleep with a pill!
ERB #1: Mahatma Ghandi vs. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Non violence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time" [1] So Ima use harsh rhythm and rhymes to confront ya, lil skinny nerd n' pantomime! "I don't think the Democrat or da Republican party is a party full of the almighty God" [2], [3] Listen Aphrodite, after I finish this fiery speech, hurry up, love on me wit a piety applaud!! Y'all rappers, I swear, every song I hear from ya All you talk about is black men like they're mafia Hell dude, I wouldn't even call you a real rapper, nuh-uh Cuz the only way you communicate is by some faker lu(ve)! You'll die the victim of your own principles cuz they are so full of crap I'm so powerful they call me King, now's the time to tip your fuking cap! Your bones will literally break by the time I put my Bible on your tiny lap To get back to your home sweet home in DISgusting India you'll need a map! If I can't handle your band of crooks myself I'll just have to call the cop See my guns and amazing attitude, it'll blow you away that I'm junior glop Imagine my dad if you speak 'nother word, he'll give ya more then a lil headbop! Man you say 'self respect knows no consideration' but now you tryna do hip hop! [4] Sources [1] http://www.wildmind.org... [2] http://thinkprogress.org... [3] You said all that about Obama being bad but what does that do to me???!! That's no dis - you a BAAAADDDD disser bro. [4] http://www.brainyquote.com...