BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to sell contraceptives to teens under the state's age of consent

My opponent brings up some good points. Let me touch on his opinion that an "Age of Consent" law is meaningless. While it is true that some teens may be ready to have sex earlier than others, nobody is above the law. Absolutely NOBODY! Although the punishments for breaking the law differs in some states, the most common punishment is statutory rape or sexual assault. Now, here's the statistics for my home state, but you can check those for other states from the statistics for this state. In my state, the minimum age of victim is 13 before the charges turn from statutory rape to, which holds more serious charges. The age of consent is 16, so if a 16 year old or older has sex with a 15 year old or younger, the crime of statutory rape stands. And depending on the age of the prosecutor and the defendant, the total sentencing could be up to 20 years (stats from http://www.cga.ct.gov...). Example, Gabriel, age 17, goes over to see his girlfriend Nicole. Over the night, the two have sex, but in the middle of it Nicole's father interrupts and kicks Gabriel out. Gabriel was then charged with statutory rape charges and was sentenced to 3 years in prison, while Nicole has to deal the fact that this is always going to stay with her. And here's the thing, I'm not saying that "sex is bad," I'm merely saying that a pharmacy should at least see ID or something to prove that the teen is at the age of consent. I understand that teens will naturally have a want, or more accurately, a NEED to have sex, but studies show that most teens lose their virginity at ages 16 and 17 (stats from Mayo Clinic Family Health Book). Those numbers are mainly above age of consent, so I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is when a pharmacy allows a 15 year old, 14 year old, or even 13 year old to buy contraception. I mean, if it's illegal for a teenager to have sex because he/she is under the age of consent, then why should a pharmacy be allowed to be an accomplice to a crime by selling a teenager a package of condoms? To me, if it's illegal for a teenager to have sex because of their age then why should a pharmacy have the right to blatantly become an accomplice to a crime that could put a young teenager in prison? Prison is no place for a young person, especially is it's sexually related. If I own a pharmacy in the future, and I had a magical crystal ball that told me that in the near future, my sale would put a kid into prison, I sure wouldn't sell that kid the condoms or spermicide or whatever they brought their money to buy. It just doesn't make sense to me. And, although the human body is private property, you can't do whatever you want with it. You can't do drugs like cocaine and heroine. Why? Because they can harm your body. So can sex to the teenager who isn't prepared for the consequences.
Pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to sell contraceptives to teens under the state's age of consent

Thanks for an interesting Case Pro. I'll be arguing against the resolution that Resolved: Pharmacies should not be allowed to sell contraceptives to teenagers under the age of consent. I will present my case, refute yours next round. 3k limit is hard.CaseC1: Violation of private property rightsNote that the only possible way to affirm the resolution is to affirm governmental intervention into how individuals use private property. Property rights are violated in two ways with these laws:1. The Pharmacy has the right to sell it's products to whomever it wishes. To support this, I'll bring in the ethical position of the Non-aggression principle, which essentially states that individuals can morally do whatever actions they wish so long as they do not damage the property or person of another individual. Thus, the resolution cannot ethically b affirmed. 2. We each have sovereignty over our own bodies and can thus ethically perform any action with them that does not violate the rights of others. Hoppe tells us that our bodies our nessecarily private property[1]:"One is not used to thinking of one’s own body in terms of a scarce good, but in imagining the most ideal situation one could ever hope for, the Garden of Eden, it becomes possible to realize that one’s body is indeed the prototype of a scarce good for the use of which property rights i.e., rights of exclusive ownership, somehow have to be established, in order to avoid clashes" Thus, teenagers have a right to sex and the right to purchase whatever commodities are on the market. C2: Teenagers will have sex anywayThis essentially turns my opponents entire case, which basically says "sex is bad". Be that as it may (I'll dispute it later), if contraceptives make sex safer than teenagers shouldn't be denied access to them. Unless my opponent proves that banning contraceptives leads to less sex, he gains no advantage. He won't manage to prove that anyway, the horomone onslaught experienced during puberty causes teenagers to naturally desire sex. The Gaurdian UK writes[2]: "In male adolescents, testosterone is driving them to think of sex every six seconds (as little as that?). Meanwhile, their reasoning is temporarily disabled while their brain sets up the "under reconstruction" sign." C3: The age of consent is meaningless"Age of consent" laws are arbitrary and not an actual representation of when someone is ready for intercourse. I lost my virginity at 16 and was completely fine with it, other friends of mine have lost theirs at 18 and been completely crushed by it. It may be a personal example, but there are no known statistics on the subject so we have to go with my anecdotal evidence anyway. These are useless, draconian laws founded on fear mongering and ignorance that should not be implemented or enforced; only parents know when teens are ready, not a random age limit. The resolution is clearly negated. Citations:1. http://mises.org...;2. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to sell contraceptives to teens under the state's age of consent

I am strongly against the idea that a pharmacy is legally allowed to sell contraception like condoms and spermicide to people under the state's legal age of consent. All that this does is encourage our nation's teenagers is to have sex knowing that they have contraception to help. But what most teens don't realize is that a condom, spermicide, or both don't work 100% of the time against pregnancies and STI's/STD's. In fact, per every 100 condoms, 2 are reported to be broken. Not to mention the 1-5% that slip off or the 3-13% that slip down the penis during intercourse (stats from http://hamovhotov.com...). But it's not just that condoms fail, but it's the shockingly high number of teenage pregnancies. In America in 2010, 367,752 infants were born to girls between the ages of 15-19. Granted those numbers did fall from 2009 when the numbers were about 9% higher, but that number is still too high if you ask me (stats from http://ww.cdc.gov...). And you do have to imagine that there are more pregnancies if you consider that there are some girls under the age of 15 who engage in sexual activity. Then you have to consider the cost of raising a child from day 1-year 18. In health class (I'm only 13) I discovered that raising a child from day 1 to year 18 for just the bare essentials (food, shelter, child care, etc.) averages around $250,000! How many teenagers do you think have the financial support to afford that? That is too big an investment for a person who's independent life hasn't even truly begun. My last point is the transmission of STD's and STI's. Every year in America, 3 million teenagers contract an STD. One of the most common STD's is chlamydia, which affects up to 40% of girls between the ages of 15 and 19. And chlamydia can cause sterility in both males and females. Another common STD that strikes among teens is HPV (Human Papilloma Virus), which affects 15% of sexually active teenage girls, and the most common strain can lead to cervical cancer. And some teenagers are going to have to live with the fact that some dumb choices they made will affect their lives forever (stats http://www.bhg.com...). Now, my rambling may seem senseless at first, and would be a good sermon to tell teens why not to have sex, but there's a method to my madness. And my method is, when a teen puts on a condom or injects spermicide or uses another method of contraceptive, they tend to get cocky. They tend to feel that they're 100% in the clear if they use contraceptives. But what they don't realize is that nothing will work 100% of the time. But the thing is, who supplies the 15 year old, the 14 year old, or even the 13 year old with the condom package with that one broken condom? And what happens if that teen puts on the broken condom? But that could be avoided if the teen never got the condom, never felt on top of the world, and never had sex.
Veganism is not good for everyone

My opponent has yet to provide an argument to negate the negative resolution.However, I will provide an argument of my own because I assume that the burden of proof is shared.Affirmative CaseTo win this debate, I only have to provide one instance of where veganism is not good for everyone.Veganism requires strict observance of diet in order for someone to remain healthy. I think it is reasonable to assume that 'healthy' equates to 'good'.For example, the vitamin B-12 is not sufficiently found it plants (it is best found in meat), due to the amount varying to as little as no B-12 [1]. If you cannot access vitamin B-12 in supplement form, then you should not be a vegan. Therefore, the instance(s) of where veganism is not good for everyone is where people do not have access to vitamin B-12 supplements (such as people who live in Africa where clean water is hard enough to find, let alone supplements like these).I can provide many other instances, should my opponent provide any counter-arguments. Until then, the resolution is affirmed.References:[1] Billings TE, 1999. Vitamin B-12: Rhetoric and Reality, part 4 of: Comparative Anatomy and Physiology Brought Up to Date, on the website Beyond Vegetarianism; URL: http://www.beyondveg.com....shtml
Batman vs Superman

I accept. I refuse to read walls of text. But it appears Pro thinks Batman is better than Superman.Superman is the most powerful being in existence. Able to benchpress the weight of the Earth, able to hold infinity and eternity (with help of course, but... infinity.), and can survive nuclear bombs. That's part of the reason why we love him. Also, because he's so powerful, people debate about who would win in a fight between Superman and Goku.But this debate seems more focused on the whole human aspect; whether we should look up to a failure like Batman, or someone who wins, like Superman. And Superman does have tough opponents, aside from Goku. Lex Luther is a challenge. He's a genius that makes many weapons out of kryptonite, Superman's weakness.
The death penalty is morally impermissible

Sweet. It doesn't matter if the risk of someone escaping from prison is minuscule, this is just one of many scenarios where that person would cause further harm. You say that this is outweighed by grieving families and chances for wrongful conviction, but your wrongful conviction argument applies for your life time sentence alternative also, so there's no way it outweighs. Also, grieving families won't lead to deaths such as an escaped psychopath will, and a family will be sad enough that the criminal is going to spend life in prison. Also, you seem to be saying that all criminals who would have gotten the death penalty would have gone to jail for life, yet this is not necessarily true, so this is another factor that makes the risk of allowing a criminal to live become unacceptable in order to save the most lives and increase the potential for value to life. So let's take a look at the railroad example. You give an example where you place a brilliant scientist over five bank robbers. Once again, because we are thinking under a util framework, we want to maximize the body count. It is impossible to weigh the values of these people. this example is like saying, "oh, but that brilliant scientist went on invent a nuclear bomb and killed millions of people." as you can see, the only way to maximize the potential for value to life is to maximize the body count because the only time when a person's value to life is zero is when they're dead. As you say, we can't weigh people's value to lives ,so we need to maximize the body count. I have not said that people should not have the right to make decisions, You were the one who said that people shouldn't have the right to decide who will live and die. you have not warranted why a death penalty should not be allowed, whereas i have. The death penalty maximizes the body count and this is best, making the death penalty not morally impermissible.
The death penalty is morally impermissible

The likelihood of someone escaping federal prison is minuscule. The difference between life in prison and death cannot be justified solely based on this barely existent chance. The risk is so small that it cannot alone justify the death sentence, considering that there are so many other factors involved. For example, counterbalancing this risk are the grieving families of the deceased, the chance for wrongful conviction, and others. Note that the "bringing criminals back into society" argument has been dropped. The railroad example is a great example for why the value system for human life is flawed. You would prefer to kill one person rather than five, because of an emphasis on the value of the quantification of life. But should that be the case? What if you made this decision, but then you learned after that you killed a brilliant scientist and saved five bank robbers? The way we view things at face value is flawed. And we must remember that life has no definite value... We know the value of things within life, but life, in its greater context, is not understood by us and hence a value cannot be put on it. Contrary to what the opponent states in his conclusion, people should most definitely have the right to make decisions; however, decisions regarding the death of a (supposedly guilty) human being should not be within the government's grasp. Thanks.
The death penalty is morally impermissible

Alright cool addressing your life time penalty You cite an article about how death penalty is no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison, however there is an existential risk here. No matter how minute it is, under a util framework we must reduce these risks. People can break out of jail for example, although this is unlikely, it's possible (look at the shawshank redemption lol) However, nobody has committed a crime after they have died. Even though the risk may be small, it exists, and that is enough to make the death penalty morally permissible, to maximize the body count. i'm also assuming that you agree that it is more of a deterrent than a temporary sentence, as i didn't see any arguments there. So you make an argument about how nobody has the right to decide whether someone should live or die. This is honestly quite simple to resolve. If there is a train heading towards five people on a railway track, and you have the option to switch the train's path to an alternate path where there is one person on a railway track, what would you do? supposedly under the util framework we would consider it morally permissible to switch the path to the one person. However, this is the equivalent of murdering that person. So what gave you the right to kill that person? It was because you wanted to save the most lives. similarly, a judge has the right to decide whether allowing the criminal to live or give him the death penalty will save the most lives. Sure there are flaws in this system, nobody is perfect, however, the risk of these criminals committing another crime or killing someone is enough to give them the death penalty. Also, under your mindset, nothing would be accomplished as nobody would have the right to make any decisions. no further justification is needed, the ability to make decisions no matter if they are right or wrong is key to our survival.
The death penalty is morally impermissible

"By giving the criminal the death penalty, we deter future criminals, reducing the crime rate."According to studies, the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. [1] The opponent bears the burden of proving that it is, indeed, an effective deterrent. Otherwise, the argument is null. Also, if these criminals were allowed to return to society, they would pose the risk of threatening more people, therefore under the util framework the death penalty would be permissible."Life-time imprisonment does not allow criminals back into society, also. ---The ultimate question is not whether or not a criminal deserves to die, but rather: Should the federal government be allowed to kill those whom it finds culpable? What suggests that the federal government, or, to be more specific, a representative of the government (i.e. a judge, who imposes the sentence) should be the arbitrator of life and death? There is no objective standard for the judge to go by, so the results of one trial can vary from one case to another; on both extremes of the spectrum, one judge may give a lenient jail sentence, while the other can impose the death sentence. What logically justifies the concept that the government should be the ultimate arbitrator of life and death?Than you.[1] http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org...
The death penalty is morally impermissible

Thanks for accepting The judge should evaluate this round under a utilitarian framework, and maximize the body count, which increases the potential for value to life. To prove that the death penalty is not morally impermissible, all i have to do is give one scenario where the death penalty would be permissible. In many cases when the crime is severe, such as mass murder, the criminal deserves the death penalty. By giving the criminal the death penalty, we deter future criminals, reducing the crime rate. Also, if these criminals were allowed to return to society, they would pose the risk of threatening more people, therefore under the util framework the death penalty would be permissible.
seeing "invisible" things

I'm not sure what you mean by, "under that," but again, in the case of any kind of camouflage, you are not seeing the thing you think you are seeing. Take the well known jungle camouflage like that used by many militaries around the globe [1]. If there was a soldier hiding in the woods, you would think you are seeing leaves, dirt, and shadows, but you aren't. You are seeing an enemy soldier, but you don't know it. Similar to the previous vase situation before, you are not seeing the dirt and shadows that are no doubt behind the enemy fighter; you are seeing the camouflaged uniform.Source[1] http://7-themes.com...
seeing "invisible" things

PRO has presented a very interesting example.In this example, an individual "sees" a vase, which is really just camouflage. However, the vase itself has not been perceived. The individual is perceiving the image of a vase, not the vase itself. That the image happens to accurately depict the reality behind the camouflage is irrelevant. Its like doing the math wrong, and getting the right answer by accident (or in this case, because you were mislead). The actual reality is that the person's eyes are seeing light that bounced off of a picture of a vase; they saw a picture of a vase, not the vase itself. The vase behind the camouflage has not been seen.
seeing "invisible" things

I will begin with a single piece of housekeeping:See: to notice, perceive, or become aware of by using your eyes [1][2][3]. The ResolutionPRO's resolution is unclear, but what is perfectly clear is that it is impossible to "see" something that is perfectly camouflaged. Even if your eyes were viewing photons that either bounced off of, or were projected by, this camouflaged individual or object, if there is no recognition that it is different than the background, if there is no perception, than by definition, it is not seen. I look forward to whatever direction PRO feels like taking this debate. Sources[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
why do some parents don't let there children go out with there friends

"with I agree but if still know that doesn't want there children to hang around with that person even if the parents is good then what should the child do." The child should obey his or her parents. I thought the ice cream man that came around my block was good, then he stole my best friends sister and killed himself. "I am not asking that parents should leave there child and let them do what ever they want..." Yes you are. You are saying that they should have the right to hang out with friends regardless of what their parents have said. "but FREEDOM is very important for the young children to develop for ex: they should have freedom of speech, they should have freedom to choose friends and if you think that is wrong and I would say that you do not mean want is freedom and your are arguing only for your win" Freedom is not very important for a young child - PROTECTION is very important for a young child. They can choose their friends, but parents reserve the right to determine whether those friends are appropriate influences.
why do some parents don't let there children go out with there friends

First, I want to answer your question and the answer is that parents should know where the children is and hanging around with I agree but if still know that doesn't want there children to hang around with that person even if the parents is good then what should the child do. I am not asking that parents should leave there child and let them do what ever they want but FREEDOM is very important for the young children to develop for ex: they should have freedom of speech, they should have freedom to choose friends and if you think that is wrong and I would say that you do not mean want is freedom and your are arguing only for your win
why do some parents don't let there children go out with there friends

You may argue that its the right thing that parents are not allowing children to go out because of there good but why does it happen all the time for example parents are expecting too much form there children even if its hard they forced caldera to fallow them." I'm not arguing that it is good or bad. I am arguing that it is the parents right to exercise such power of their children. Children often times do not know what is best for themselves. For instance, when I was young, I thought it would be good to feed my turtle pizza - being a fellow ninja turtle and all. But fortunately my parents swiftly caught my blunder and stopped my forced feeding. My ninja turtles fantasies notwithstanding, I will have to again ask you for more specific examples and a clear statement of the resolution you think you are arguing. 1. Parents are not always right, that is true, but when you are old enough to live all by your lonesome, you will have the luxury of looking back and deciding whether what they did was good or bad. I look back even now and say to myself, "Dang, my parents were right." 2. Yeah they need to get their homework done, who do they think they are? 3. Parents are strict here too. Question: Do you think parents should not have the right to regulate who their kids hang out with?