BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17

Before I launch into my arguments, I think it reasonable to provide some context to our Democratic Republic and the purpose of voting. This Democratic Republic was established “of the people, by the people, for the people. ”(1)At the time this government was established, it was a radical change from the governments that preceded it. We the people of the U. S. are to have a voice. We are to be able to elect our own representatives. Our Congress and our president are subject to our approval given via voting. Contrary to the tyrannical governments of history, the United States, “we the people,” are intended to have the sovereignty and power to govern ourselves. As indicated, one fundamental way that we exercise our sovereignty is through voting. In the history of the United States, the sovereignty of the people has been reinforced as the vote has been expanded to groups that initially could not vote. For example, consider the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments. It is time that the liberty and sovereignty embodied by capacity to vote for President be extended to 17 year olds. For what reason could be given to restrict the liberty of 17 year olds. John Locke argued that The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free"(1) The question of this debate is therefore, do 17 year olds possess the capability of reason. I submit that clearly, 17 year olds are as capable as those 18 years old. The difference between the two ages is negligible at best. The law of the land in most respects acknowledges this. Consider 17 year olds pay taxes (2), drive vehicles, be tried as adults for crimes, and can even die for their country serving in the military. (3) It seems arbitrary to submit 17 year olds to all the responsibility of 18 year olds without the power or sovereignty to vote. Until 17 year olds are granted the right to vote, they are victims of tyranny. Paying taxes without representation, being tried as an adult, and being able to enlist in the military, but being unrepresented in the government to which they are subjected to is tyrannical. My opponent must provide reasoning that demonstrates why 18 year olds differ enough from 17 year olds in such a way as to justify denying them the vote. As I have shown, the difference in age between the two is negligible and thus those who have reached the age of 17 ought to be able to vote for the president that will represent them the next four years. This is why the voting age in Presidential Elections should be lowered to 17. Oppose tyranny, support liberty and vote Pro! Sources (1) . http://www.constitution.org... (2) . https://www.irs.gov... (3) . https://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: The voting age in presidential elections should be lowered to 17

Rules1. Comment before accepting the debate2. It may take me a while to respond, so be patient3. No trolling4. No kritiks5. No forfeiture6. Be courteous7. No new arguments in final focus, you may refute if you want to.Round structureR1- Pro provides caseR2- Con (me) present my case, pro refutesR3- Con refutes, pro final focusR4- Con final focus, Pro waives
Should the US take military action against syria

Since this is the last round I would like to point out the fact that voters are voting on the debate, not their opinion. I'm sorry my friend but you didn't really do any debating. No offense, but it's the truth. I would remind you as I stated earlier that the FSA has committed drastic Human rights violations as well. Around 1,300 people died from chemical weapons, which still have not been ultimately confirmed as Assad's actions. The War, waged by both sides killed 100,000 and displaced millions long before the chemical weapons were used. (1) American efforts of peace building and democratization have been largely unsuccessful. Our attempts to turn nations into "peace-loving states" have not done this. Peacebuilding is extraordinarily time consuming, difficult and carries no guarantee of success. Does America really have the means to support that kind of policy right now? The assumption that capitalism and democracy are the universal solution to everything, is a misstep, we never seem to pay attention to the grassroots. What do the Syrians want? There is very little evidence to suggest that the Syrians actually want an intervention either. (2) American citizens are largely opposed to it as well, as I cited earlier. So should the American government really defy the desires of it's own populous? I certainly don't think so. Intervention at this point in time would be illegal. As I said earlier, it is a sad irony that America breaks international law in order to enforce it. Why don't we use the global mechanisms created to enforce peace to mitigate the situation? (1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Should the US take military action against syria

Since this is the last round, I would like to make a statement to any potential voters. If you would have to choose between a man who kills thousands with chemical weapons, or those who would like to oppose him, who would it be? I will be supporting military action, for Assad is evil, and those who oppose him are also evil, but not as evil. I believe that the US can form Syria into a peace-loving state. For the greater good
Should the US take military action against syria

Yes, it is very convenient that shooter was classified as "unidentified", very suspicious to say the least. But we do know that Assad's troops did not openly and obviously attack the U.N as you stated. It's interesting that you bring up the American revolution. Yes, we would have undoubtably lost without French aide. But there is a striking difference, the American revolutionaries were not involved in an Intra-state civil war like Syria is. Syrians are going to have to learn to live with each other after this, and somehow build peace. Time and Time again, history shows us that all to often, leaders proclaim freedom and liberty, an revert to authoritarianism. Numerous savage dictators have risen up under the guise of a liberation movement. I don't suggest that the Assad Regime is superior to the FSA, but I do submit that if the United States should play no role in this decision. If we are to militarily intervene, we are subsequently responsible for whatever the outcome of that nation. We assume the responsibility to reconstruct what we destroyed. Building a new nation, and building peace is extraordinarily difficult, and America has seen how difficult this is firsthand in Iraq and Afghanistan. After nearly an 8 year occupation in Iraq, we have left behind us a failed State (1), that lacks the most basic of services and protections for its occupants. There is still widespread violence and unrest. (1)http://ffp.statesindex.org... It is my main contention that Military Intervention is self defeating and counterproductive. Mass violence and death is no way to show a people how to live in peace. America, with a depleted economy and large scale internal strife, is in no place to fight a war, and assume the responsibilities of post war occupation and reconstruction. The majority of America opposes military intervention, (2) which is yet another reason not to attack. Our government is designed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. So if the majority of Americans oppose intervention, we should not intervene. There is too much at stake. We are not world police. (2)http://www.cbsnews.com... Aside from that, you did not really make any clear arguments.
Should the US take military action against syria

Many deaths are worse than a few deaths. and isn't it convenient that it was a sniper firing on UN vehicles? And isn't it convenient that the shooter was listed as unidentified? And lastly, didn't people have to die during the American Revolution? Didn't a second party (France) have to chose the rebel's side? And wasn't it chaotic at the beginning (and end) of both wars. I respect your arguments, but either way, on side will eventually end up winning. The loser will face many casualties. I believe that, if the Rebels win, we will have a new US Ally, and there will be a new democracy in the world.
Should the US take military action against syria

I would not side with either. Both sides are guilty of human rights abuses. Both sides are waging a brutal and ugly war. I am no ultimate authority, and I do not know what is best for Syria, so I don't support my tax money supporting another potentially catastrophic military intervention as we have seen in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. You mention bias, yet you cite Huffington post, which is often criticized for its Left wing bias. But, I don't doubt the factual roots of the article. The same is true for everything I cited in my previous arguments. Also, thank you for showing me that, I hadn't ever heard about that happening. This being said, I would like to point out that the shooter was "unidentified", and likely will never be identified. You claim that Assad's troops fired on them. This is pretty illogical, as Assad would have no interest in killing U.N inspectors, as an open attack would ruin his credibility. There are a lot of people in the Middle East, and the world that resent the United Nations. It does stand as a testament to the instability and violence present in the region though. As I stated in my arguments, the FSA is guilty of dozens of reported human rights abuses, and there have very likely been more unreported ones. Many dictators and brutal authoritarian regimes have risen to power under the guise of liberty and freedom. Africa has been victimized by this cylce for decades: Dictator---War/Coup---"LIberation"----Dictator. If you need actual examples I will be happy to supply them. I I Seriously doubt that fear is the motivation for the FSA stealing from Turkish Merchants. If I were a member of the FSA (who is likely armed) and supposedly fighting for freedom, and I saw a foreigner near me, and my adrenaline was "pumping through my veins" the last thing I would do would be to rob that person. Regardless, these are the least atrocious of their violations which include Murder, torture and kidnappings. Also, the idea of intervening in Syria is wildly unpopular in America, (1) and after all our government exists to act out the will of the people. That's what makes us a democracy. (1) http://www.usnews.com... Other than that, you didn't really respond to any of my other arguments against intervention, so I can't really make any further comments.
Should the US take military action against syria

While these newspapers are highly convincing, many of them are biased. If you were to compare Assad's regime to the Rebels, who would you side with. A man who kills children? Or people who are fighting to basic Human Rights? As for the Turkist Merchants, the people are scared. Imagine this: The nation is at war. Your and family could be killed at any moment. You are working as a rebel in order to secure basic human rights.You see a foreigner near you. Remember, you are suspicious of everybody. Adrenaline pumps through your veins. What would you do. What is better: A man who kills his on people with Weapons of Mass Destruction, or a militia fighting to secure basic Human Rights. As for the UN Inspectors being fired on, look here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
studentathletechristian8 = fail

I will defend studentathletechristian8 by saying that he is not fail. My opponent defines failure as a condition opposite of success. However, sac8 is actually winning the debate that he sourced, which is obviously an example of success. Additionally, rather than looking at one sole debate, we should look at sac8's entire win/loss record to determine whether he is fail or success. http://www.debate.org... His record is 40-2-16. He has won more debates than he has lost, which makes him a success. In conclusion, studentathletechristian8 is not fail, but success.
studentathletechristian8 = fail

The Resolution for this debate is that studentathletechristian is fail (thats a meme). Definitions: Failure refers to the state or condition of not meeting a desirable or intended objective, and may be viewed as the opposite of success Examples of failures: http://www.themadhat.com... http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com... http://www.xconomy.com... Examples of christianathletrchrisitian8's failure http://www.debate.org... Lets Begin !!!!!!!11!!!!!11! (thats a meme).
studentathletechristian8 = fail

"It was not an appeal to authority it was just to provide an example of how one person can be considered a fail despite the fact that they have had many successes or wins. " Just because somebody can be considered to be X, does not make that person X. To say that requires the fallacy of an appeal to authority. "The only way you can turn a fail into a win is by an hero (thats a meme), which on the DDO website would be doing something crazy then closing his account. " Another appeal to the "authority" of EncyclopediaDramatica. Fail. As my opponent gives nothing to back up EncyclopediaDramatica's claims, we have no reason to believe his claims. Therefore, the resolution is not affirmed. I have already negated the resolution. Extend all arguments.
studentathletechristian8 = fail

It was not an appeal to authority it was just to provide an example of how one person can be considered a fail despite the fact that they have had many successes or wins. The only way you can turn a fail into a win is by an hero(http://encyclopediadramatica.com...)(thats a meme), which on the DDO website would be doing something crazy then closing his account. Seeing as he has not done that SAC8 = FAIL
studentathletechristian8 = fail

"My opponent has posted this comment under the premises that one failure to accomplish their goal does not make the person a fail if they have succeed in most cases" Correct. My opponent has nothing to say about it, however. "On the web page, the claim that the instance in the the youtube video was a fail despite the fact he won 10,000 pounds." Appeal to authority [1]. "EncyclopediaDramatica says he is fail." "EncyclopediaDramatica is authoritative." <-- This statement in the fallacy isn't even true. "Therefore, he is fail." In conclusion, my opponent has no problem with my premise, only commenting on it, and makes a horrid appeal to authority. sac8 is still not fail, as he has won more debates than he has lost. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Critical Literature existed before 'A Critique of Pure Reason'

Modern critical theory arose from a trajectory extending from the antipositivist sociology-- This version of "critical" theory derives from Kant's (18th-century) and Marx's (19th Century) use of the term "critique", as in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason For Kant's transcendental idealism, "critique" means examining and establishing the limits of the validity of a faculty, type, or body of knowledge, especially through accounting for the limitations imposed by the fundamental, irreducible concepts in use in that knowledge system. The second meaning of critical theory is the theory used in literary criticism and in the analysis and understanding of literature. This is discussed in greater detail under literary theory. Literary scholars first used this term in the 1960s and 1970s, and the term has only come into broad use since the 1980s, especially as theory used in literary studies has increasingly been influenced by European philosophy http://en.wikipedia.org... First I would like you to remind you that my claim to a overbroad definiton is a logical fallacy. Fallacy of definition THe Over-broad definition fallacy can be reviewed at the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is when somebody body intentionally defines something so broad to avoid there being a clear distinction. The Fool: We only need simply to look back at my back labeling example to clarify exactly what is meant criticism here. In that critical theory is specifically a modern conceptualization put forward around the end of the 19th century in which the type of criticism is particularly that of Kantian critical philosophy. I may be wrong but I think it’s fair to say that partner has put his foot in his mouth and is going to have to rely on semantic ambiguity. As responsible philosophers the aim is to define in the direction of clarity as we are both noble in the pursuit of knowledge and not deception. Pro: Further, I accept my opponent's "back-labelling" embargo, however remind him that if something is accepted as a criticism in its own time, then it is classed as a definition in its own time. The Fool: mind you my partner is already attempting to relativize the definition, as to make it ambiguous to meaning. can you think of any debate where opponent says that the meaning of the definition used is constantly changing depending on exactly which time we are refering to within a debate. Very slippery this one. Another sophism to point out is the use of the word ‘embargo’ which is a Red herring to give the appearance that I am being excessively enforcing in some way. As an embargo blocks trade it has an intentional negative connotation. Sophism are logical fallacies or irrational techniques of persuasion, such language plays a big part in manipulation of the audience and it is something to look out for by any critical thinker. Even critical thinking is based of critical philosophy. Expect nothing more than lexical semantic games in the next rounds.
Critical Literature existed before 'A Critique of Pure Reason'

As my opponent wishes to shorten the debate (as stated in comments and private message), we'll cancel this round in order to address any maladies. The first malady is: "I disagree with the definition proposed as it is too broad to add, general criticism or evaluation of literature as such are intuitive by reading liturature alone". This does not explicitly refer to which definition is being questioned. I request that this is made explicit to be clearer.Further, I accept my opponent's "back-labelling" embargo, however remind him that if something is accepted as a criticism in its own time, then it is classed as a definition in its own time.Finally, I am glad my opponent accepts the definition of critical literature, and so we can move on from this point.
Critical Literature existed before 'A Critique of Pure Reason'

I disagree with the definition proposed as it is too broad to add, general criticism or evaluation of literature as such are intuitive by reading liturature alone. Secondly I do not consider post-humously back lableing by future generation on to path. E.g. Political science is modern definition. But its gets back labled on to past philosopher such as Plato. In that Plato gets asserted as doing political science because it shares similarities when infact the concept was non-existential at the time. Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism. aka Critical theory. I accept this definition.
Critical Literature existed before 'A Critique of Pure Reason'

The_Fool_on_the_hill : "Critical Literature is way before Critique (not critic) of Pure Reason." This debate is based on a discussion spawned between myself and The Fool on the Hill.The debate is as follows:Critical literature is synonymous with literary criticism, or the criticism and evaluation of literature. The Critique of pure reason refers to Immanuel Kant's A Critique of Pure Reason. We shall refer to the first edition, circa 1781.existed refers to the predicate that this is a debate on whether something exists, and therefore on fact, and not whether literary criticism should have existed before Kant's Critique, for example. PRO has burden of proof. CON has burden of rejoinder.First round is for acceptance. Disagreements in definitions should be posted in comments section. Acceptance of the debate with no disagreement on definition means we both accept the definitions, and shall not challenge said definitions after the first round.Furthermore, no squirelling in debate.
That UfC should be banned.

I think in this statement "but these people are intentionally causing harm to each other. I'm sure they could find another sport" you have clarified your position better. Now we can debate the topic of what I refer to as "blood sports." In my definition of blood sports, the goal is to do as much damage to your opponent until they are so weak that the winner can claim victory. This can be solo competition, for example UFC, martial arts, or boxing, where the goal is to literally beat your opponent into submission, or team sports like rugby or football, where the goal is to get your ball to the other side, and crowds cheer when you knock down, dominate, and "damage" the other team. Before we continue, I think it would be best if you agree or disagree with my belief that UFC, boxing, martial arts, rugby, and football, are all examples of sports where "people are intentionally causing harm to each other." If you agree, then we can debate freedom of choice. If you disagree, then this turns into a debate about what "causing harm to each other" means.
Bronies forever and ever

The 500 character limit is annoying.I agree that bronies are awesome, however they cannot last forever. Indeed even if one managed to gain biological immortality, he would still perish once the heat death of the universe occurs 10^100 years from now[1], therefore preventing him from truly being "forever". Like everything, bronies too will one day disappear as upsetting it might be to admit that fact. Vote Con. http://en.wikipedia.org...
God Isn't Perfect

Well here's the thing God is all powerful, But NOT all good. I know God isn't ALL GOOD. God is rather ALL JUST rather than ALL GOOD. He gives people what they deserve based on what they did on Earth. 2. God is perfect. Who are we to say what should happen to disgusting people committing disgusting sexual immoralities and wrongdoings. Anyway. God is perfect because there is nothing he lacks. There is no attribute, Thing, Power, Etc. God can't do, Create, Be, Etc.
Babies should be allowed to carry weapons.

Round 5 is for grammar checks. Voters, please go easy on me for this one, as I recently broke my arm. Anyway, Pro used 'MURICA! which is a slang tern, and not accepted in common dictionaries. You said If a baby gets kidnapped by a thief or rapist. That period should have been a comma. You said 'raped'. This is a quote directly from the debate. "You say that babies don't know how to fight.. Well, that is why we give them steroids and top military training when they are born." This is misuse of grammar. You cannot commit cannibalism. You can, however, cannibalize. This is another direct quote. "Obama specifically said he will eat and commit cannibalism if anyone tried to lick his toe. Therefore showing he enjoys murder and even eatting humans!" You spelled eating wrong. Also, nowhere in that sentence was there anything about enjoying murder or cannibalism. You wrote, oink oink. The first o should have been capitalized. Yet another quote, "I will not give up! No matter how long it takes for us to open our brains and realize babies are given steroids at birth secretly." This is another misuse of grammar. You obviously don't know that humans will be able to genetically engineer babies. You wrote kim jong un. This should be Kim Jong Un.
Babies should be allowed to carry weapons.

Ha. Your statement is foolish. You think you can beat me? I don't! I went to college! There are many solutions to babies not knowing how to fight. 1.You say that babies don't know how to fight.. Well, that is why we give them steroids and top military training when they are born. 2. We can genetically engineer all human races to automatically know how to fight when they are born. Its very simple. Next, about the law... 1. Obama specifically said he will eat and commit cannibalism if anyone tried to lick his toe. Therefore showing he enjoys murder and even eatting humans! I think I pretty much won. Surrender yourself. oink oink