BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is rational to allow children of any age to buy condoms.

I would also like to state some definitions.According to the medical dictionary in http://dictionary.reference.com...Child- A person between birth and puberty.Puberty- The stage of adolescence in which an individual becomes physiologically capable of sexual reproduction.Birth- The emergence and separation of offspring from the body of the mother.Kid- A child.Using these definitions, it is safe to assume that once a child hits puberty they are no longer considered a child. Therefore, because puberty is when an individual becomes capable of sexual reproduction, it is irrational for children to be allowed to buy contraceptives or condoms.Age of ConsentThe age of consent in the united states ranges from ages 16-18 (the world average is 16.) Having sex below this age of consent is illegal. Supplying condoms can make kids more sexual(not neccessarily promoting sex, but putting the idea of sex in their heads), this will want them to have sex or at least watch pornography. (I noticed my opponent won a debate regarding the detrimental effects of pornography, so it is not hard to see why pornography is a negative aspect of this.) Because children are virtually all below the age of consent, this can create major legal problems. Why should a store let children buy condoms when they are not legally old enough to have sex. The age limit to drink alcohol is 21 in the U.S. so is it rational to sell alcohol to children? No, because it is illegal for them to drink it.Decreased use of condoms in school studiesA person becomes more sexual once they hit puberty. This is due to hormones and body changes. Here is a quote from a scientific study where 10 schools made condoms available to the students through vending machines, and baskets in school clinics."The percentage of sexually experienced students who used a condom the last time they had sex decreased significantly"This study shows that supplying students with condoms actually decreases the amount that they use condoms.ConclusionIt is not rational for children to be allowed to buy condoms, because children are incapable of sexual reproduction. It is irrational for stores to sell condoms to kids. This is because the children are not legally old enough to have sex.Thank you,SeelTheManSourceshttp://www.age-of-consent.info...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;
God Exists

Let's dive right in. I will be copying and pasting from my old debates on this topic. C1: Ontological Argument 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, Then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, Then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, Then it exists in the actual world. 5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, Then a maximally great being exists. 6. Therefore, A maximally great being exists. There are three key entities in this argument: 1. Impossible entities that cannot exist in any possible world because they are logically contradictory. For example, An invisible pink unicorn is an impossible entity because it contradicts the nature of pink and invisible. 2. Contingent entities are entities that exist in some possible worlds, But not others. Humans, Animals, And plants fall into this category because they exist here on Earth, But their existence is not necessarily on other worlds. 3. Necessary entities exist by the virtue of its own nature. The laws of mathematics, The laws of morality, And the laws of logic are such types of laws. These entities/laws exist independently of the universe. If the universe did not exist, 2+2 will always be 4 and the law of non-contradiction will always stand. There are also three key worlds in this argument:1. The actual world - the one that we live in2. A possible world - a world that could logically exist3. An impossible world - a world that is logically impossible Thus if it is logically possible that God exists, Then He must exist in one of these logically possible worlds. P3 is a statement of axiom S5 of modal logic, Which is that:S5: If possibly necessarily P, Then necessarily P. C2: The KCA 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, The Universe has a causeIf something begins to exist, Then that means there was a time when that thing did not exist. The obvious question is why is there something rather than nothing? The Universe is not infinite so there was a time prior to the creation of the universe. P2 is uncontroversial in philosophy or science. The scientific consensus is that the universe began to exist about 13 billion years ago. Consequently, Something must have brought the Universe into existence. What could this cause be? A necessary entity (see contention 1) that exists outside of spacetime. Thank you.
God Exists

This is my first debate on this site in a long time. This acceptance round has been shamelessly copied from Contradiction. Hoping for a good debate. TERMS Resolved: It is probable that God exists. Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Clash4. Closing arguments/clash For the purposes of this debate, The term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, Omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, I am not referring to any specific deity. Hence doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are irrelvant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not. The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, One side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, Then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, You agree to these terms. The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, And it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable. It is thus not enough to simply refute my arguments. My opponent must also erect his own case against the probability of God's existence.
Raising the minimum wage would help get America out of its recession.

I would like to remind my opponent that he is PRO and I am CON. In the past, debaters have been confused and argued my point. I encouraged voters to make it a tie, but I do not want a repeat. Clarification: 'Raising the minimum wage' is raising the minimum hourly income of a job in America. Raising the minimum wage will have a negative effect on the American economy, because: 1. Jobs will be cut. 2. Prices on everyday goods will go up. 3. Price inflation will result. 4. Interest rates will increase. 5. Fewer businesses will start. 6. Savings diminish in value. 7. Less money will be spent. 8. More jobs will be cut. 9. This goes on and on. 1. If the cost of hiring someone increases, then companies will not be able to afford as many employees. . http://www.heritage.org... . http://www.frbsf.org... . http://www.pbs.org... . http://www.heritage.org... 2. 3. If the cost of hiring someone increases, then companies will be forced to raise their prices to compensate. In the long run, this cancels all of the benefits of raising the minimum wage. When goods cost more, the cost of everything goes up. This is called price inflation. Such inflation can weaken the economy. . http://www.onlineathens.com... 4. Because banks lend money to make money, when the value of their loans decreases do to the inflation described above, they must make more money to compensate for this. They do this by increasing interest rates on loans. . http://www.foxnews.com... 5. With higher interest rates, it is harder for businesses to start, as they have to make a larger initial risk. Also, with higher interest rates, it is harder for a business to stay afloat. . http://www.westportresources.com... 6. Because interest rates will be less than the rate of inflation (banks have to make money), the stronger inflation is, the quicker the value of a savings account deteriorates. . http://www.bankrate.com... 7. When people have less savings, they spend less. Also, they feel less secure. www. iht. com/articles/2009/02/02/business/03econA. php 8. With less people spending, fewer companies can sustain themselves. Also, with less spending, the economy is weaker. . http://www.coloradoan.com... 9. This really does go on. Raising the minimum wage can severely weaken an economy, and that certainly isn't what we need right now.
We Should Send Everyone to Prison

Why is this a debate? 1.Is this a joke? 2.It's funny how you only made 1 round for this debate; yet in this 1 round, you decided to cite no evidence. 3.If all humans are to go to jail, who is going to put them in there? Eventually there will be no one to put people in jail. Why? Because they would be in jail... 4.Since you think that everyone should be put in jail, would you be fine with it if YOU were thrown in jail too? 5.There are 7.6 billion people in the world. Where would you put them?
The one way speed of light is instantaneous

Okay. So Roemer and the Hubble Sphere are the ways we know One way speed of light is not instantaneous. Roemer was observing Io's orbit very carefully. When the Earth was going toward Io, Io appeared to be orbiting slightly faster. This is because the Earth was intersecting the light coming from Io. The opposite effect happened when Earth was moving away. This is because, now Earth is going away from the light coming from Io. Think of it like frames of a movie. Where Io is the movie, and it is sending out frames at the speed of light. If Earth was going toward Io, it would see more frames in a second. If you play more frames in a second, it would appear to be speeding up. The Hubble Sphere is the stars we can currently see. This one is pretty easy to explain. If light were instantaneous, we would see every star in the universe. But since light is not, we can only see the stars in our Hubble Sphere.
The one way speed of light is instantaneous

First, before I go into disproving your claims, I need to clarify something about the speed of light. The way people measure the 2 way speed of light is by shining a light in a vacuum, and measuring how long it took it to come back. If you assume that the speed is constant, then it traveled 299,792,458 m / s (by calculating the time it took and the distance traveled). But if you assume that it was instant the way there, it would hypothetically travel at 149,896,229 m / s on the way back. In both hypothetical cases, light would take the same time to travel the same amount of distance. Now, when you say we are observing "new stars", that is completely irrelevant to the topic. As you say, "...we would already see all the stars in the universe.". How do you know that this isn't how the universe looks like? What if we see how the universe truly looks like in current time? Also, what if I'm right, and we indeed DO see all the stars in the universe. I see no real proof against my position in that claim, only you stating what would be true if I was right, which I agree with. About the Ole Roemer's Observations, I do not see how planetary orbits are at all related to the speed of light. You simply just described the gravitational effects of Earth and Jupiter. How is that at all related to a finite speed of light? I need a reason if I am going to accept you claim. About the modern experiments, I was talking about the ONE way speed of light. You are confused about what I meant about the topic. I was saying one way is instant. I never said the other way was not. Those experiments are consistent with the speed of light being instant one way, and being 149,896,229 m / s the other way. Therefor, proving that it is possible for the speed of light to be instant one way. And about black holes. Yes, the "point of no return" prevents light from getting away. But what if it only prevented the reflected light from escaping? That light would be traveling at 149,896,229 m / s, and would easily be affected. Also, light traveling instantly could be catastrophically effected from such gravitational energy, or be veered off course, so we cant observe it. We still have a lot to learn about the speed of light, and black holes. Many theory's are still being made, so the possibility of my claim still stands. I believe there is no way you can disprove my claim. Any way you can try to do that would either previously assume the speed of light, or just be an irrelevant claim. I suggest you research what Einstein said on the speed of light. I suggest you read this article, which may help you understand my position http://www.engineering.com...
The one way speed of light is instantaneous

*---We are observing new stars---* We are still observing new stars appearing. If the speed of light was instantaneous, we would already see all the stars in the universe. Space is a vacuum. *---Ole Roemer's Observations---* Roemer observed a shadow of Jupiter's moon Io very precisely. He knew Io's orbit took 1.76 days. However the speed seemed to vary. It looked like Io was moving faster when Earth was moving toward Jupiter, and the opposite when Earth was moving away. This is consistent with the speed of light being finite. *---Modern experiments---* Astronauts placed a mirror on the moon. Scientists then pointed a laser at it and measured the delay for the signal to come back. This took about 2.5 seconds round trip, but the fact that it took any time at all means light is not instantaneous. *---Black Holes---* Around a black hole, a circle is formed. This is because all the light in that hole has been pulled in by the tremendous gravity of the black hole. If light traveled instantly, this would not happen.
The one way speed of light is instantaneous

The one way speed of light is instantaneous. I am to argue FOR this statement, and my opponent will argue AGAINST this statement. --Definitions: Light- Visual electromagnetic waves, which in the electromagnetic spectrum have a wavelength from 380 nm to 780 nm. But may refer to other electromagnetic waves in some other cases. Instantaneous- occurring, done, or completed in an instant. *Also, the argument for "the speed of light" is its speed within a VACUUME. Please remember this, as there are many factors that effect the speed of light.
The one way speed of light is instantaneous

Here is the question, how do you know it was because of the speed of light? You say it is consistent with light moving slower, but that doesn't mean that is the reason. You might like that explanation, but liking it doesn't make it true. Also, you assume that space is isotropic, but you cannot prove it is. Io could just take longer to orbit. When I say that space isn't completely isotropic, I mean that it not being isotropic could lead to effecting the planet. You are assuming that the planets and moons orbit perfectly around the sun, in a fashion that we can predict with absolute certainty in such a specific way that we can make judgments on the speed of light. I don't assume that. I disagree with you on that assumption. How do you know that the Hubble Sphere exists? It is a description of what we CANNOT see. But how do you know that it is true? How do you know that there are stars we cant see? You would have to know about them in order to say you can't see them. Also, how do you know that the universe is expanding? I did look up what you are claiming, and I could not find a satisfactory explanation for my questions. You assume the universe is expanding, assume that the speed of light is equal in both directions, and from that assume that there is a Hubble Sphere. That is the problem. Before you claim there is a Hubble Sphere, you have to assume that I'm wrong, then use that as proof against me. That is the fallacy of begging the question.
The one way speed of light is instantaneous

Roemers observations were of an increasing speed in Io's orbit when Earth was heading toward Jupiter and of decreasing speed when Earth was moving away from Jupiter. This is consistent with light getting to the Earth a tad bit faster because the Earth is moving toward Jupiter, and a tad bit slower in the opposite. The solar system, for the most part is isotropic. Unless you can show that it isnt, it is assumed physics apply to everything. The Hubble Sphere, is the result of the Speed of Light. The universe is expanding. Outside of the Hubble Sphere, stars are receding from Earth faster than light. Therefore we cannot see them. I do not have the credentials to explain it much better. Look it up. Anyways, we know there are more stars in existence than we can see. Once again, look it up.
The one way speed of light is instantaneous

Sorry for not being specific in some of my claims. Also, could you please give examples of new stars just "appearing" in the sky? I don't know any instances of stars appearing and would need some more information on this. Now about Romer's experiments, the problem is that he assumed that space is isotropic, and that light is constant/consistent. Isotropic- Physics. of equal physical properties along all axes. having uniform physical properties in all directions http://dictionary.reference.com... Your description of Roemer's experiments are wrong. It wasn't like frames in a movie. Io's orbit appeared different depending on the position/movement of the earth and Jupiter. Roemer just blamed it on the light, and claimed that it was because it took light longer because of earth's position. Why did he do that? Why is light the reason, and not something else? What if its because of Io just traveling slower? What if its because of the planets moving differently? What if it is because the space isn't isotropic? Why does that mean light took longer to travel? There are many assumptions that Roemer made, and that is why his conclusion isn't guaranteed. You can find other references then Wikipedia, too. Just because its on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's wrong. I just used Wikipedia because the web page had useful information for everyone in understanding the subject more.
The one way speed of light is instantaneous

No, The fact that we are observing new stars appearing in the sky proves that the speed of light is not instantaneous. If it was instantaneous, we would already see all the stars in the sky because the light would have already reached here. I realize I am retracting some of my claims. This is because I did not fully understand what you meant in the debate topic. I also do not understand why Roemer's discoveries are wrong (and would like you to expand on that), but for now I will take it that it does mean Roemer's discoveries do not disprove your point, because... Wikipedia.
God exists.

Well for clarity's sake, I am indeed surprised that you have invited me to this very merry discussion, well, first of all to summarize my argument, I'm going to start in saying that "We know that animals think in different way", so in that way we know that there exists animal world and which is to say different from the human world (Dummettian-cum- Davidsonian analysis), by that we aspire to break out of the limitations of merely human perception, and perceive the world as it is in itself"the single reality that underlies the very different perceptions that constitute the world of animals and the world of humans. By means of science, we have made some progress towards understanding the world as it is in itself"we can point to ways in which scientific descriptions of the world are improvements on the description based on our bare perceptions, so our aspiration to know the world as it is in itself cannot be dismissed as an incoherent longing. But insofar as this aspiration is coherent, "in itself" cannot mean "without reference to the perceptions of any being." So it really is the notion of reference, there should be a strict universal notion of reference which refers to us and of course it takes one mind only to recognize us being a bare referent. So this bare referent (which is us) of course is being referred or being recognized by the strict rational mind and I think it would be illogical for someone to negate that we are a bare referent. Thus the single world that underlies the different perceptions of humans and other species can only be understood as being the world as apprehended by a being whose knowledge constitutes the way things are"in other words, the world as apprehended by God.
Gun Control in America

In an almost related topic, the government could call upon a purge. Similar to the movie, the government could regulate one day during each year to letting citizens to either lock themselves in their house or go out and have a killing spree. So in different words they allow citizens to do whatever they want to rid themselves of the hateful feelings that they have inside. The "mentally unstable" would, preferably, kill themselves off by their hate-drunken rage. It's a far-off idea, although the scheme of the whole situation is understandable and has a decent chance of being successful.
Gun Control in America

ILLEGAL is the key word in your argument. There will always be a black market for guns just like there is a black market for many other expensive items. No matter what it will always be there. If the government could control it they would and it wouldn't be ILLEGAL because it would be regulated. Yes, it would be great to get some control on it but lets be honest it's never going to happen. No matter how much gun control there is the mentally unstable person, who would like to commit awful crimes, will get their hands on a gun. If they really want it they will do whatever they have to to get it. Don't get me wrong I want US citizens to be safe as well but the government can come up with better ways, other then going after the black market to keep us safe.
Gun Control in America

As far as the customer needing a blue card or completing a background check goes: that process should be checked on to make sure that the dealer is actually following the rules to ensure the safety of the gun buyer and the innocent population in general from being harmed by said buyer. And in most cases these days the buyer isn't getting the gun from a dealer or someone legitimate. The buyer is getting it from an illegal distributor of weapons or just taking it from someone that may own one. Illegal things like that should be checked upon the most. We do have the right to own a gun, but we don't have a right to illegally distribute them and thus putting everyone in danger.
Gun Control in America

There is a big difference between being more cautious about who guns are sold to and the government taking guns away. There are already rules in place that set the guidelines for gun sales. The dealer must do a background check and there is a certain holding period before the customer can actually obtain the gun. The customer must also have a blue card to buy/ own a hand gun. I see nothing wrong with this process. Of course there could always be some more small precautionary measures taken to help insure that the person buying the gun is in the right state of mind and educated on it but there is no reason why the government should need to know about every gun in someone household or even go take a gun away. We have the right to own a gun so the government needs to let US citizens practice their rights.