BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate.Org's Age Criteria Isn't Right

My opponent tries to show a correlation between age restriction and discrimination. However I believe that it is merely a over generalization. He tells that people who set minimum or maximum age requirements are afraid of teenagers or old people. There is no evidence, or proof Pro shows to prove this correlation, so his burden of proof falls off. He tells that this restriction prevents debate skills and learning. I argue that there are more options than just debating to improve your skills. Such as taking in a mentor, you can find one in DDO, read DDO's debating guide, and much more. A newbie shouldn't immediately jump in without at least knowing the common terminology.
Debate.Org's Age Criteria Isn't Right

Round 3 is rebuttals and other arguments for rebuttals, so I'll get into those.1. Younger people brains are less rational than adult brains. This is very true in many ways. Teenager's brains are more adolescent than adult's brains, however, there's nothing stopping adult's from causing same actions as teens. Adults can gladly choose to become their teen or childhood days for nostalgia purposes. Also, adults may have disorders or mental illnesses that can cause actions similar to one of a teen's actions. According to an observation, and I quote from The Atlantic: "In August 2010, Robin Marantz Henig observed in New York Times Magazine that Generation Y (the Millennials) has pushed back each of the five milestones of adulthood: completing school, leaving home, becoming financially independent, marrying, and having a kid. " [1] There is also a graph nearby this information. s://cdn. theatlantic. com. .. ; alt="pew3. png" />By the view of this, this shows that the share of Population of 18 to 24 year-olds enrolled in school or colleges are increasing as the years or generations go on. [1]Moving on, Con explains, and I quote: "The reason why I brought up this is that older people want to have a good, fun debate. They want to debate rationally, not emotionally. The age criteria allows for older people to debate with there peers. "The definition of 'peer' is basically an equal skill level. If they wanted to debate with their peers, they should be adjusting the Elo ranking requirements, not the age. Explanation of age is in round 2. But I must point out on: "They want to debate rationally, not emotionally. " Then it is best to make this clear than adjusting the age requirements.2. "The age criteria doesn't even matter either. Anyone has the power to just simply change there age through the DDO settings. "This should be DDO's problem, like preventing age changes once the age has been decided (and should be updated as the years go by. Either way, this argument is pointless. Those are my rebuttals for round 3. Source:[1] . https://www.theatlantic.com...
Debate.Org's Age Criteria Isn't Right

Younger people brains are less rational than Adult brains. Teenagers brains process information through the amygdala, the emotional part [1]. While adults use their prefrontal cortex, the more rational part of the brain [1]. The reason why I brought up this is that older people want to have a good, fun debate. They want to debate rationally, not emotionally. The age criteria allows for older people to debate with there peers. The age criteria doesn't even matter either. Anyone has the power to just simply change there age through the DDO settings. [1]- . https://www.urmc.rochester.edu...
Debate.Org's Age Criteria Isn't Right

Round 2 is arguments ONLY, so here we go. I only have 2 arguments.1. Overall Ageist. According to dictionary. com, the definition is as follows:noun 1. discrimination against persons of a certain age group. 2. a tendency to regard older persons as debilitated, unworthy of attention, or unsuitable for employment. [1]Notice the bolded statement here. This more accurately describes the basic idea of Debate. Org's Age Criteria. Children or older people are usually discriminated thinking they are debilitated or weakened. People who are using a set minimum and or maximum range, are basically afraid that teenagers or old men are going to mess up everything, have lower quality arguments/rebuttals, etc. And there are cases when 'trolls' or 'troll debates' are made by younger people, that still doesn't make it absolutely necessary to change the minimum range to a higher age group.2. Prevents Debate Skills & LearningDespite being online, a lot of 14-15-year-olds here have professional (while newbie) debating experience, but they are learning. And if they are being prevented from accepting a challenge because of their age, it is hindering the person's debate skills. And yes, they can take debate classes, and I can't refute that. Those are my only 2 arguments I have here. I am excited to hear my opponents arguments. Sources: . http://www.dictionary.com...
US embargo of Cuba

Apologies if you felt insulted..if you want more trade for the US then you are also against the US embargo of Cuba and we agree!..I would say that you should read the debate title more carefully and research the definitions of "pro" and "con"..I did explain it in my last post Gdawg. If you agree then why did you accept this debate. I would really have liked to have had a debate..not an agreement with my position. No insult intended to your person. ;)
US embargo of Cuba

Um, I thought it was at the top of the page. "US embargo of Cuba". I am "Con" or against it. You listed yourself as "Pro", or for it. Another debater on this site messaged me, thank you asiaobee: They said: "This troll answered me the same way. You have clearly won this debate.", or thereabouts. If you don't know how to use the site, how do you expect to debate? It's like not bringing your books/pencil to class. Also, if you must ask about the topic maybe you should stick to FB. Not trying to be nasty just stating the facts GDawg. ;). Well are you ready? I would really like to debate this with someone that has a clue.
life of infant in womb, should sometimes take priority over mother's wishes for abortion

the points about birth control not always working doesn't really work too well here, cause we are talking about later in pregnancy. later in pregnancy, she assumed the issue of carrying the child by not aborting when it was morally grayer. she also assumed the risk of getting pregnant. you didn't respond to the hypothetical... if you cause an accident and someone is attached to you and can't get unattached for a number of months, no reasonabel person would say you can kill the person you became attached to. i also could allow rape exceptions as mentioned, so it was pointless for you to mention it. how does the value of allowing a mother time to decide if she wants to keep it trump a human life? if an exception like rape or health doesn't apply as mentioned. not knowing you are pregnancy almost never is an issue in late pregnancy. i would just chalk it up to luck of the draw for the woman though if she didnt know till later. she still assumed the risk of pregnancy and there's soemthing to be said about her lack of periods and keeping in tune with what's going on. (recgonizing not all woman have periods due to birth control etc) so are you suggesting a woman with no traditinoal exception like health, should be able to abort her child a week before her due date, just because she wants to? if you say no, then you agree with teh resolution, the woman sometimes DOESNT get what she wants. you were just trying to poke holes in something. at best we'd just make better laws to accommodate those holes, it doesn't mean a woman's choice is absolute, which you seem to be saying by taking this debate etc.
life of infant in womb, should sometimes take priority over mother's wishes for abortion

The rights of a fetus should not be able to over rule the mothers rights. Sometimes birth control, condoms, and other things don't work 100% of the time. Why should someone be punished for having sex? It's natural. Also, not all the time the mother assumes the risks. What if she was raped? Sometimes, not all the time she assumes risk for carrying the child. What if her birth control didn't work, and she didn't know she was pregnant? Why shouldn't a mother be able to chose if she decides to keep the baby or have an abortion? She might not want to decide right after she got pregnant. She might want to take some time to decide if she wants tow if she really wanted an abortion or if she wants a child. What if the mother didn't know she was pregnant? What if she only found out in late pregnancy? That shouldn't mean she shouldn't have different rights than a mother who found out quicker. Again, her birth control might have not worked and she didn't figure out until late pregnancy.
life of infant in womb, should sometimes take priority over mother's wishes for abortion

the rights of the infant of the womb, should sometimes trump the rights of the mother at least later in the pregnancy... sometiems infant's rights should trump. a mother assumed the risk of pregnancy, and then, she assumed the risk of carrying the child for many months. to be clear, i'm focusing on later in pregnancy. but there and earlier, an argument could be made that earlier in the pregnancy she forfeits her right to not be pregnant by assuming that risk. much like... if you cause an accident, and the victim's body is somehow temporarily attachedk to your body, hypothetically speaking... a reasonable person would say the tortfeasor must at least wait a few months until they can be separated. that analogy could be extended to later in pregnancy, and then topped off with the fact that she didn't bother to terminate when it was more debatable whether it's a person or not. (if it's debatable, who should decide? the governmnet? why not the mother who is more proximite?) when it was morally grayer. later in the pregnancy though, it's not debatable about personhood. if there's no significant health or life or very very significant emotional problems (which might include rape, but since i'm focusing on later term pregnancy, the mother is losing her rights in that regard given she didnt abort when morally grayer), aborting the infant in the womb is no different than aborting it when it is born. the only difference, that the mother is hindered, is trumped by the risks she assumed, and that leaves nothing to justify abortion later in the pregnancy if an exception doesn't apply.
Recycling is better than donating!!

Well, let's start off with your argument. Recycling can be done at the same time as donating, but this hardly supports your debate. Donating to people can help someone get back on their feet and save their lives completely. Recycling is good in some circumstances, but donating is good in all circumstances. Recycling, if you didn't know, is a more earth-friendly way of throwing things away. Why throw it away when you can give it to a helpless child?
Education system giving more importance to academics,thus excluding sports and arts.

I would like to start off with yes, more importance is given to academics. This is how it should be. In the title of this debate (Education system giving more importance to academics,thus excluding sports and arts. ) it says that by doing this, it is excluding sports and arts. Again, I argue that it isn't. I don't really understand what you meant by saying academics don't tell you how to live your life. No, but they are a crucial thing in life, and should be more focused on. You need them to get a job, to do taxes, to do your job, etc. Academics do actually give social knowledge. There are many projects in school that can last a long time, and usually require the work of more than one person. There's also presenting the projects in front of the entire class. Saying school work doesn't give any social knowledge is incorrect. You don't need sports and arts to gain that. I know sports do give social skills as well, but they still shouldn't be more or equally focused on. You also don't need to do sports to be physically healthy. , and how would that reflect in your studies? I see no way that it does. As far as your situation goes, (I know you said it was stupid) I don't think a smart person would do math as a dog closes in on them. But again, you do not NEED to play sports or do arts. I agree that it is a good thing to do, but you don't need it. Concluding this short debate I would like to get back to the main point. Schools are not excluding sports in arts in any way. Pro has failed to provide proof or evidence for this.
Education system giving more importance to academics,thus excluding sports and arts.

I really appreciate your views. but what i mean to say is that more importance is given to the bookish knowledge. you may agree with my opinion that" life is lived on real life skills and practical skills" which could only be inherited by involving in sports and arts as they teach us teamwork,sportsmanship and enhance our thinking and artistic knowledge. academics i.e book knowledge only help us to mold in our surrounding by making us understand the scientific phenomenons and giving us the explanations of our day to day queries. but what i am trying to say is that "it does not tell you how to live your life?" it doesn't give you the social knowledge because that can only be gained by (working as a team) which is an element of sports. Sports enhance your physical and mental stability too. If you are not physically healthy it will reflect in your studies too. let me give you a situation,Though it is stupid A dog is rushing toward you to bite you, what will you do- (A) run from there {sport's element} (B) apply cosQ sinQ {bookish knowledge}
Education system giving more importance to academics,thus excluding sports and arts.

I will make this argument short, as there was nothing to refute. Schools everywhere have sports and arts programs available to th students. If a student wants, he may indulge in sports such as football, track, soccer, etcetera. If the student likes art, he may take art classes, that can be from crafting, to woodwork or painting. I understand that academics are more emphasized than sports or arts, and rightfully so. Although sports and arts are a good way for kids to express themselves or do something they like doing, they are not what the main purpose of school is. Again, the purpose of school is to provide much needed knowledge that will definitely be needed later in life. Schools are not excluding sports and arts in any way, and I challenge Pro to find evidence that they are. I understand this argument was short, but there was nothing for me to refute, and will be nothing unless Pro returns.
Education system giving more importance to academics,thus excluding sports and arts.

Good luck! I argue that academics should in fact be more important than sports, but the focus on academics does not exclude sports whatsoever in schools. A school is a place of learning. At school you learn much needed knowledge such as mathematics, Language, science, etc. All things that are extremely useful in everyday life. Although sports do help provide other skills, such as teamwork; academics are far more important. Even though academics are more important, schools are not excluding arts or sports in any way, shape, or form. These were my opening statements, and I look forward to the next round.
Education system giving more importance to academics,thus excluding sports and arts.

education one's considered a 3 legged stool comprising of academics,sports and arts. but now it become one tracked ,more importance is given to academics to get better jobs. thus, excluding the importance of sports and arts from a child's life. the education system is centered to give book knowledge to the students rather than basic real life skills and practical skills. due to this the students are deprived of their physical health and artistic thinking
U smellhttp://www.debate.org/verify/

All you do is slag people off, go away. The word "slag" is a noun, thus cannot be applied to the way my opponent is using it. Slag is: 1. Waste material from smelting: fused glassy material that is produced when a metal is separated from its ore during smelting. 2. Coal waste: the mixture of coal dust and mineral waste produced after coal has been mined. (1) Besides, if my opponent thinks that I am turning people into mixed coal dust, why did he challenge me? My opponent has said that I smell. My opponent has the BOP to prove that I smell. The OP is, "U smellhttp://www.debate.org...;. Basically, my opponent has said that the page http://www.debate.org... smells. Smell is defined as 1.detect something using nose: to detect or recognize something by means of sensitive nerves in the nose 2.use nose to assess something: to use the sensitive nerves in the nose to assess something 3.be detected when breathed in: to seem to be in a particular condition or give a particular impression, when judged by somebody breathing in through the nose (2) Notice that webpages do not have noses, therefore cannot fit definition 1 and 2. Also notice that webpages do not have any odors, since they are not physical item. Sources 1. http://www.bing.com... 2. http://www.bing.com...
Chase is an inherently better name than Jace.

Chase is more common as a word people are familiar with, but not so much as a name. In 2012, there were only 1,000 more Chases than Jaces named. Distribution amongst a random population is negligible. Jace is a male and female name, albeit more commonly used as a male name. It's usage is still so new, however, as to not have an absolute identity. It didn't even become more popular than Hubert until the mid 80's.
Chase is an inherently better name than Jace.

"Chase" is a more common name, but that also means it could lead to more confusion since there is a greater chance of being in the same room as someone else named "Chase." "Chase" is also both a female and male name which could lead to further confusion, and in our already gender-confused nation we don't need to add further confusion. "Jace" is a male only name, meaning is a much more masculine name and therefore the child will be less confused as he gets older. "Chase" also has other meanings other than a persons name. There are just layers and layers of confusion.[1]"Chase" peaked as a name in 2009 with "Jace" peaking in 2012. Meaning "Chase" is a name of the past. "Jace" is the name of the future. Though we are not quite to the point of creating the confusion that "Chase" can make as per my first contention.[1]"Jace" is also very easy to pronounce. Anyone who has trouble pronouncing "Jace" probably also has trouble tying their shoes, brushing their teeth, clothing and feeding themselves, and probably has many more problems with pronunciation issues being the least of them.[1]As to the hair-loss issue, you may be right. But Chase is the name of a TERRIBLE movie featuring Charlie Sheen, and it the word also invokes images of the famous O.J. Simpson police chase. "Jace" may lead to hair-loss, but "Chase" will lead you so far down the rabbit hole you will lose your grip on reality.[1][1] Rabid.Penguin
Chase is an inherently better name than Jace.

Chase is a much more common name, thereby being more easily understood. Jace is so infrequently used, most people will assume you said Chase in the first place. Pronunciation is debatable. It can be pronounced either Jase or Jays.* The pronunciation of Chase is universal.Anecdotaly, I believe naming a child Jace drastically increases the liklihood of premature hair loss.*http://www.babynamewizard.com...;
Chase is an inherently better name than Jace.

You are correct that "Chase" is more familiar as a word, but that's only because, as I've pointed out before, "chase" has multiple meanings, thus adding to its confusion as a person's name.According to the website, you yourself posted, while "Chase" is androgynous [1], "Jace" is a masculine name [2]. When "Jace" started becoming popular is not important. It is obviously the wave of the future. You are stuck in the past. A past of gender and word confusion. A past of racism, intollerance, and bigotry. A past of Hitlers, Stalins, and Lenins. A past of witchhunts, slavery, and New Coke. The popularity of "Jace" just shows that men are finally allowed to be men again, and our society is progressing to a new, more glorious, and brighter future.I rest my case. Vote Con. Pro is a Jace-ist. [3][1] http://www.babynamewizard.com...[2] http://www.babynamewizard.com...[3] http://www.debate.org...
Nuclear energy should not be used.

Nuclear radiation is clearly hazardous but the practices at Fukushima were less than safe. Fukushima was not a Chernobyl but it was a horrible occurrence. The reason it made international news is because that because of the hazard of nuclear energy, there are many safety practices. I'd like to share a New York Times headline: No Survivors Found After West Virginia Mine Disaster. Twenty nine people are dead. Certainly the alternative can be just as harmful as nuclear energy. Thank you for letting me debate this with you.
Nuclear energy should not be used.

They said that MGX is created by a private individual. Though that is true, there are other sites that agree with the inefficiency such as sciencedaily. com, which is an organizational website. This point is not only cited by private individuals but also credible organizations. I have all of the URLs which I can give you if you comment asking for them. Also, the other sources could be windmill farms, solar panels, hydro energy, and many other natural sources that don't destruct. According to a Nuclear Energy Education article on eHow, While nuclear power plants operate under strict safety codes and emergency procedures, there is no way to fully protect them from natural disasters, terrorist attacks or mere human error. One problem is radiation exposure because no matter how rare, reactor meltdowns and explosions have occurred on a number of occasions, most recently in early March 2011 as part of the tsunami aftermath in Japan. Not only may the explosions themselves cause immense damage, but harmful radiation leaks can cause deadly aftereffects. Radiation can cause mutations or destroy cells in your body. For example, according to Wikipedia, because of the Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima, Japan about 37 people who were within the 20-30 km zone were affected by the radiation and got diseases. About 2 people got radiation burns and were taken to the hospital. Since nuclear energy is highly hazardous and causes damage that is not worth the benefits, nuclear energy should not be used, as it is doing more harm than good.
Nuclear energy should not be used.

Mgx.com is a site created by a private individual and not an organization that studies the effects of each type of energy. You also fail to mention what the alternative is. I live in a city that is surrounded by hills and is very cloudy most days of the year. That means that solar or wind energy cannot supply my city. However, the form of energy that does is natural gas and coal. Nuclear energy is far cleaner than the two alternatives. Coal and natural gas have to be delivered to my city to because of regulations saying that coal mines and natural gas wells have to be x amount of miles away from a city. It is possible to recycle nuclear energy in a sense but, most see this as a political issue that isn't being debated here right now.
Nuclear energy should not be used.

We should not use nuclear power because it is very inefficient. According to MGX.com, nuclear power is not only dangerous, but also inefficient for these reasons: The inefficiencies discussed relating to the lower steam temperature necessary when using nuclear energy in order to avoid overheating the fuel rods do not include the additional costs of transmission and delivery. Transmission and delivery account for almost 70% of every utility bill because power plants are so far away from the end customer and because so many middlemen are involved with the final distribution. This does not occur with renewable energy that is produced at the location where it is demanded the most. Nuclear energy is not efficient, and there are more efficient forms of producing energy. Why not use the more efficient form?