BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
justice delayed is justice denied

http://researchnews.osu.edu... This links shows that 10,000 innocent people are sentenced to jail each year. That number would decrease if the defendant were to be given more time. Some people are too poor to come up with money for an attorney! They should be given time to collect the money. http://hirealawyer.findlaw.com... This link shows that many complaints in lawyers are low fees and lack of communication. That is easily fixed if the defendant and his lawyer have had the time to communicate. To what some people think justice delayed is justices not served, could mean justice delayed, put a man who is accused in prison who is really innocent. I would like to commend my opponent on an excellent debate topic and good luck!
Drinking Age of 18 should be abolished (UK)

No, you got it wrong. Moderate drinking won't help. Even the minimum quantity of alcohol that a kid can drink can cause problems to their health. Again, it's not a matter of responsibility. Any kid under 18 years old should not consume alcohol. A law is made to protect them. Abolishing it will not make much of a difference. Irresponsibility is inevitable about the matter. Your notion is that a law forbidding the consumption of alcohol makes it more attractive. Should we legalise drugs as well? No, we should not do that for the irresponsible people who want to drink alcohol (or take drugs) because they want to feel "rebellious". And it's much more easier and effective making a law forbidding alcohol consumption under the age of 18 years old, instead of making a law that forbids children to consume alcohol under the age of 15 and bind children that are 15-18 years old to drink no more than once a week with an adult present. Can you see how ridiculous is this? I don't say that you recommended a law like that, but in a country that a lot of people die from drinking too much, a law must exist. So, what's it gonna be?
Drinking Age of 18 should be abolished (UK)

Many apologies for the forfit. First of all i will state my main arguments then counter yours. On the NHS website, it states that drinking under the age of 14 can cause damage to health. 14 is very different to 18. If moderate drinking values are instilled at a younger age then the health benefits of moderate drinking can be taught to younger people, such as increased heart health and longer life. Although most of the evidence suggests that moderate drinking is more beneficial later in life, teaching these values to children while allowing them to experiment with moderate alcohol use can help to ensure that thy will drink alcohol responsibly in the future. In our country there is a culture of binge drinking, unlike any other country in Europe. Although this is a cultural issue i believe that there is much to be said for abolishing the drinking age and aiming to instill more responsible drinking values. By having the age of drinking at 18 the act of binge drinking for people under the age of 18 becomes one of rebellion, by taking this away some of the appeal is removed. In addition to this in countries like Germany with a very rich drinking culture, children at the age of 13 are allowed to drink beer and can purchase undistilled alcohol at the age of 16. This allows them to become accustomed with how much alcohol is suitable for them and also to learn that alcohol is perfectly safe when used is a responsible way. By telling people that alcohol is dangerous that wont help them. In places where sex and drugs education is "DONT" that is generally where the highest levels of teenage pregnancy and drug abuse is. By saying that alcohol is dangerous it wont stop people from drinking it, the same way saying "don't do drugs kids" doesn't stop people from taking drugs. You need to teach in schools that alcohol can be fine when enjoyed responsibly. By purely pointing out the disadvantages of drinking, e.g. alcoholism and binge drinking, you miss the main point of the education which is to accept that many will want to try alcohol and the main way to minimize the risk for them is to teach how to consume alcohol safely. In America where the drinking age is generally higher, the number of alcohol related deaths is almost 1 in 10. They also have huge problems with excessive drinking upon reaching the 21st birthday, as they have received no education and since the consequences of drinking are far more severe they have no clue about their personal tolerance. This is why abolishing the drinking age would be beneficial along with more intelligent education. Sources: http://www.nhs.uk... http://www.independent.co.uk...
Drinking Age of 18 should be abolished (UK)

I disagree with you, because this is not a matter of responsibility. This is a matter of health. Basically, if any kid under the age of 18 years old drinks alcohol, they run a great risk to create damage to their brain cells due to their developing mind. So, education will not help in this issue as much as a law forbidding alcohol use under this age. Though, we have to explain this to children, so we do whatever we can to prevent them from drinking alcohol. We don't need to teach anything about it in schools. It will take less than a minute to explain to kids how alcohol can be dangerous to them, just as fast as I actually did to you now.
Did the U.S achieve its goals in Vietnam

There weren't really many short term goals besides: winning the hearts and minds of South Vietnamese(partially achieved, US received many refugees but the Vietcong overpowered the rest of South Vietnam), bomb and intimidate the North(worked for a short time, but by the time the U.S. left they were willing to continue attacking, and prevent communism from reaching other countries(it quickly spread, even with U.S. involvement). Nixon ordered repeated bombings of Cambodia, a Communist country, after U.S. forces had left. Comparing the US relations with terrorist to the Vietnam War does not have much relevance. Terrorism has little to no chance of actually overpowering the US, and no ordinary American would support terrorism. North Vietnam wanted to unite the country with force, while terrorists simply want to spread fear and chaos into the United States. Politically, yes they were leaving a South Vietnam, but the fact that we did nothing when North Vietnam won shows that we could have recovered the country. Repeated bombings killed about 10 Vietnamese for every American killed, and napalm bombings on innocent South Vietnamese only weakened support for the war in both the U.S. and Vietnam. The main short term goal was stopping the flow of communism. The U.S. failed because the ideologies of South Vietnamese had already been transformed by the influence of the North. It would be impossible to keep a country separate from a neighbor that imposed such transforming beliefs. Communism was considered a massive benefit due to the dictatorships Vietnam suffered, and much of South Vietnam shared this view. The flow of communism thus swept across the country, and the U.S. arrived too late to change the peoples' minds. Being attacked from both sides spontaneously contributed to massive American losses, and if the war was prolonged, I doubt the U.S. would have achieved much else.
Did the U.S achieve its goals in Vietnam

What you say about failure to maintain communism in southeast Asia is true and also the point you make about a weak south Vietnamese military, however, I still believe the short term goals of the U.S were met. When U.S combat troops first entered Vietnam they were entering a south Vietnam, and even though they were under attack from guerilla fighters they were stilling entering into a south Vietnam. The U.S is under attack from terrorist right now but we are still a country. Overall the U.S solider had done everything he had been asked to do and when the last U.S combat troops left in 1973 they were still leaving a south Vietnam. As far as long term goals are concerned, containing communism in that area was doomed since the birth of communism itself. Communism seem to have a luring effect on poorer countries promising equal wealth and distribution. If there's one thing needy people like its equal wealth distribution and don't forget finical backing from the other big power house of the time, the USSR. this is why we see a trend of poorer countries like those of south east Asia, Indonesia, and south America fall to communism. No power in the world could have stopped that trend. any how I digress, though communism could ultimately not be stopped in the region, when U.S troops left south Vietnam it was still called south Vietnam, and for that credit must be given. The failure of the weak army of south Vietnam after we left was inevitable.
Did the U.S achieve its goals in Vietnam

The U.S. failed to contain the spread of communism, and therefore did not fulfill its goals. South Vietnam was entirely dependent on the U.S. military, and as a result quickly fell to the Vietcong and North Vietnam. United State was unable to contain communist influence the moment it left. Laos is another country that also adopted communism, and the U.S. was also militarily involved in preventing a revolution there as well. However, that was not an original goal, and the North Vietnamese Army gave assistance to overthrow the Royal Lao Army. The U.S. did not prevent communism from spreading to other parts of Southeast Asia. South Vietnam was not "preserved" when the U.S. arrived. The Vietcong hid in secret and ambushed American soldiers constantly. In order to maintain a republic, the people had to agree to existing laws as well as help the U.S. fight. This was not the case, as Americans did nearly all of the fighting, and countless Southern Vietnamese immigrants fled to the States. If the U.S. had intervened earlier, there might have been a possibility of containment.
Did the U.S achieve its goals in Vietnam

Forgive me for any mistakes made during this debate as this is my first ever debate on debate.org My opinion on the topic is this, people need to remember what the overall goals of the Vietnam war were. U.S involvement in Vietnam was to prevent the spread of communism into south Vietnam and the rest of south east Asia. The goal was not to capture north Vietnam or kill every communist in the area, but rather too preserve south and keep it a republic. We all know that today there is only one Vietnam, and it is a communist run country, but did the U.S technically lose ? People to often seem to forget about the Paris peace accords. In 1973, the Paris peace accords were signed which called for a immediate cease fire between the U.S and south Vietnam and its enemies the north Vietnamese and the Vietcong. Once the ceasefire was signed the north and south were no longer at war for a short period of time. After the accords were signed, the remaining U.S combat troops were removed from Vietnam and at this point in time there was still a north and south Vietnam left in much the same state that current day north and south Korea are in today. However, in 1975, once the remaining U.S troops had left the north reneged on there agreement and launched a massive offensive against the south. Meanwhile, in the U.S, Nixon had left office and the democratic party had taken control of the Whitehouse. With U.S public support for the war at an all time low, no support was sent to south Vietnam to help them fight off the attack. On April 25, 1975, the last helicopter left Saigon and the country was in communist hands. keep in mind this was three years after U.S forces left Vietnam. So did the U.S achieve its goals in Vietnam, I would have to say yes. Seeing as how in 1973 a peace treaty had been signed and when the last U.S combat troops pulled out there was still a democratic south Vietnam that was at peace with the north.
The Amount Of Tv Commercials Should Be Monitored

Ok this is ridiculous, you keep saying that you think there should be no commercials and don't give me any reasons to refute and the only thing that is sort of a reason is because you think there are too many. I don't believe there are too many commercials. Unless you talk about those stations that play infomercials all night long. All I am saying is I can't really debate you right now because you are not giving any good reasons on why it should be monitored.
The Amount Of Tv Commercials Should Be Monitored

I do not believe the government has the right to do this. Why should they be allowed to limit the amount of commercials you watch. Some people like commercials and others don't the amount just depends on how much the stations play per commercial time. The company's that want to advertise their product or service they should be able to without the government holding them back. This is just robbing those company's of business if you ask me. I don't enjoy commercials but I can see why our society has them. Who doesn't enjoy a good commercial here and there anyways. Who can forget the Geico commercial "Hump Day". I don't feel the government should have the power to limit times. I think it should be the stations who choose the amount of time.
should we allow people to carry oil and drill for it on the ocean.

I said "possible" drinking water and if you have not watch news there are machines that filter out all the salt and parasites and makes drinking water but it does cost a lot of money. Water collects electricity so if lightning strikes the oil on a oil spill or drilled oil it will cause an explosion and a fire. I also looked this up "82,000 birds were harmed. dead birds 6,147, dead sea turtles 613, dead mammals 157. in 1 oil spill." that is not a million but it is a lot that is 88,917 dead and harmed animals in 1 oil spill so you have a good argument but how about this.
should we allow people to carry oil and drill for it on the ocean.

Burden of ProofMy opponent takes the full burden of proof for claiming that drilling oil in ocean water and "carrying it" shouldn't be allowed.ArgumentCrude oil is used for a variety of incredibly useful things. Oil is converted to diesel fuel (petrodiesel), ethane (and other short-chain alkanes), fuel oils (heaviest of commercial fuels, used in ships/furnaces), gasoline (petrol), jet fuel, kerosene, benzene (historically), and liquefied petroleum gas according to this source: http://en.wikipedia.org... The United States in particular relies on oil heavily. To make such a drastic decision and ban drilling oil on the ocean would lead to a large shortage. Gradual steps would need to be made even if we actually wanted to ban oil drilling on the ocean.Rebuttal"Possible drinking water is being destroyed."Ocean water can't be drank in the first place. The salt concentration is too high. You would die of dehydration. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov... If you argue that we could use the water to drink after removing the salt, then yes you are correct. The problem is that oil spills only effect and incredibly tiny amount of ocean water. I was unable to find a source that included the surface area of every oil spill ever, however I was unable. I will instead use the Deepwater Horizon oil spill which is known as the largest oil spill ever. It has a surface area of 2,500 to 68,000 sq mi according to http://en.wikipedia.org.... Let's assume it is 68,000 square miles. Now let's compare this to the surface area of the Gulf of Mexico, the site in which the oil spill occurred. The area of this body of water is 600,000 sq mi according to http://en.wikipedia.org.... Another problem with this statement is that oil isn't soluble in water in any significant amount. Why? Oil is made up of nonpolar compounds while water is polar. The water remains there just underneath the oil layer."Million of animals are dying."My opponent largely inflates this number. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org...
should we allow people to carry oil and drill for it on the ocean.

Rebuttal"Well 1 good thing that may happen is it may stop the risk of pollution and million of animals dying"Keep in mind the massive negatives. We would have a shortage of this list of 144 items alone: http://www.ranken-energy.com...; "And ocean water and other water is used for electricity so polluted water could have a bad effect."Polluted water works just as well as pure water in hydroelectric dams."And just because an explosion never happened it actually might."While data extrapolation isn't necessarily flawless, It is safe to say that the risk (considering it hasn't happened yet) is too low to even worry about.Argument Hydroelectric power is a relatively small portion of total energy production for the U.S. compared to Oil. Removing a large source of our energy is too harmful to justify saving "million[s] of animals."I rest my case. Good luck to Con in the voting phase.
should we allow people to carry oil and drill for it on the ocean.

Well 1 good thing that may happen is it may stop the risk of pollution and million of animals dying. And ocean water and other water is used for electricity so polluted water could have a bad effect. And just because an explosion never happened it actually might. And even though it is safer what if it hits a rock the oil can then come out . So try on that and good luck. P.S. people who are reading these like it if you agree that we should not allow it and people who think we should dislike it.
should we allow people to carry oil and drill for it on the ocean.

Rebuttal"I said "possible" drinking water and if you have not watch news there are machines that filter out all the salt and parasites and makes drinking water but it does cost a lot of money."Yes, I am aware. My rebuttal still holds true."Water collects electricity so if lightning strikes [an] oil spill or drilled oil it will cause an explosion and a fire."First, I will discuss oil that isn't spilled. Lightning strikes can be prevented. Instead of banning the drilling of oil, we could just put slightly more money towards lightning prevention, which would have a much better result at less the cost to society. "What it comes down to largely is risk tolerance. For example, in 2008 a storage tank holding 1.2 million gallons of unleaded gasoline was struck by lightning in Kansas City. The tank, either unprotected or ineffectively protected, caught fire, resulting in hard cost losses estimated at $12 million once accounting for the lost product in the tank, the tank itself, extinguishing the fire, and facility downtime. No one had thought, or their risk tolerance wasn't low enough, to completely protect the tank from lightning, a solution that would have cost less than $30,000 in total – on a one-time basis." I got this quote from this source: http://www.ogfj.com... Therefore, stored oil can be kept safe from lightning strikes.Now let's talk about lightning igniting spilled oil. I looked for examples of this in real life, but as far as I know, it doesn't occur often. It isn't a prevalent problem. I would like Con to give as many real life examples recorded in history of lightning causing an oil spill to catch fire/explode. The only thing I was able to find was lightning causing an oil spill, and not actually exploding/igniting an oil spill.Please explain the benefits of not allowing people to carry oil and drill it on the ocean and do a cross comparison with the losses of said action. You must prove that the benefits outweigh the loss.Thank you and good luck.
Obama Administration's IRS Scandal is Alone Worthy of Impeachment

I wish to thank you for your consideration in debating me on this topic. This is the format for the debate:Round 1: Acceptance only.Round 2: Arguments only.Round 3: Rebuttals only.Round 4: Closing Arguments and Rebuttals.————————Good luck,~Corridon. Note: This debate is on both the AP Phone Records scandal and the IRS targeting conservative groups for political reasons.
Personal Electronics should be allowed in the classroom

Debate Parameters Opponent:This will be an 'Open Debate' and the first member to accept my challenge will become my opponent. Category:Education Rounds:There will be a total of 3 rounds of debate. Voting Period:The voting period will last 3 days. Time to Argue:For every round of debate, each debater will have 24 hours to post their argument. Argument Max:Each debater will be allowed to type up to 8,000 characters for every round of debate. Voting Comments:Members voting on this debate are required to provide comments for their vote.
Linux vs Windows

Linux is a great system for developers and consumers alike I agree but what sets Linux apart from Windows (in my opinion at least) is the ease of use. Windows is much more suited for the run of the mill idiot who can't program or even encrypt files. Windows is better in this than Linux because Windows offers the ease of use that Linux lacks. First of all a new user to Linux must already have some idea what they're getting into, and they must be familiar with the company (,which by the way hasn't done a great job at promoting itself in any other communities than the open source and programming/web hosting communities). What makes Linux even more horrific for newcomers is all the problems it might have with their main OS, for example a programmer friend of mine has previously had problems with windows 8 and 10 and the Linux systems, and the fear of something dramatic happening to ones own computer might put some people of or shun them away from the idea. In my honest opinion Linux is still a valid choice and I will keep using it in the future, but some people just want something easy and familiar which is the exact opposite what Linux offers. If you like to use Linux OS, fine if you don't also fine, but at least we can all agree that Apple and Mac OS sucks and probably will always continue to suck until the day all PC users have been waiting for comes... The day Apple ceases to be.
Linux vs Windows

Actually this has been for a very long time question and I, the cons and the Debate.org are going to *kinda* answer it. I'm going for the Pro, which is Linux. For the first reason, maybe you have know it, that Linux is FREE and OPEN SOURCE. This means that for devs, you can YOLO and make your own operating system to show off your friends. And the second reason, which kind of makes Linux reputation in servers, and maybe in your NAS or even your computer, is its security. There's almost zero-day bugs on Linux and because it is open source, everybody can keep an eye on the code, which means more secure than Windows. Third reason, the ability to customize. That boring blue tone that can change to another color, but not a whole different UI. Transform Pack? Screw it. Linux (distros) have a lot of Desktop Environment (DE) for you to choose from: Unity, GNOME, KDE, and go on more. Your desktop will never get boring. There's always an alternative. For adventurous people who want to go for a new software, there's a ton of alternatives for Windows program that is ready for you to use. They are almost fully-featured as Windows application, and for free. Or if you don't like alternatives, there's always a VituralBox or WINE (google it out). Windows is not stable, I know, you know, we all know. The legendary BSOD, the occasional crash of some applications, and I can go on (again). You always need to reboot a Windows machine because of BSOD at least once in your life. Not Linux. They are designed to be stable overtime, so your computer, NAS, server, whatever will rarely reboot (except updates). So what more? Yes, Linux is VERY lightweight. If your kids need a computer to type their essay, and you are not wealthy, but also can't afford a new computer. Yes, Linux is here to save you. Just go on Craiglist, eBay or a thrift shop, you can buy a 5-year-old computer. Just install a new drive and install a lightweight distribution, and see the old computer comes back to life. Your kids have a computer, your wallet is saved. It's a win-win. Have you bored with going around downloading crap on the Internet? Well, Linux distro's package manager saves you. They have their own app store, and their own command line interface package manager to make sure that you can install 90% of the application without downloading the installation files on the Internet. And a weird thing to end my debate: Microsoft has finally joined the Linux Foundation. WTF.