BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The legal drinking age in the United States should be lowered to 18

I would like to start by stating that I am on the pro side of this argument. The first reason I believe the legal drinking age in the United States of America should be lowered to 18 years of age is that the high drinking age (The United States has the highest drinking age in the world) places too much pressure on colleges and other organizations to enforce it. Kids at a Community College are going to drink in their rooms regardless of regulations. The College simply can't enforce it everywhere. But if a government worker comes to "inspect" the college (I am talking about government funded public colleges) and they find alcohol anywhere on the premises other than in a winery making class there can be penalties. My second contention concerns the military. If an eighteen year old can go off to risk his life protecting his/her country, why aren't they entitled to have a drink every once in a while? For my next point I would like to point out that the increase to 21 as the drinking age forces underage drinkers to drink in secret, much like during the National Prohibition. Without parental supervision they abuse and binge drink, and then are more likely to get into a car accident on the way home. However in countries like France and Italy where the drinking age is 16, or in countries like Britain and Australia where it is 18, kids learn moderation in a controlled setting, like a restaurant. Kids in these countries statistically get into a fewer average amount of accidents. Therefore, I think the foolishly high drinking age should be lowered. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US's best interest.

Ok, first of all, I am anti-war. But in this case, I think it is certainly in the best interest to send in the troops. President Barack Obama announced a 30,000 strong troop surge to "seize the initiative" in Afghanistan and finally end the brutal eight-year war. If this is what it takes to bring it to an end, I see no alternative.
President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US's best interest.

I'll first clarify the resolution, offer a burden to the pro side, and then allow my opponent to post his or her arguments in agreement to the resolution. President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan: Anything relating to Obama's plan for putting 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. Burden: Best interest is defined as the concern for one's benefit. For the pro side to win this debate, he or she must prove that president Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is more beneficial than not, to the United States.
Homosexuality is a dangerous sexual deviance and should be illegal

The facts are out on overall homosexual comportment and deviant sexual proclivities such as pedophilia. Of course I'm speaking generally and there are Sexual deviance definition 1. A condition, such as exhibitionism or masochism, in which sexual gratification is derived from activities or fantasies that are generally regarded as atypical or deviant. 2. Such a condition when it causes distress or impaired functioning in the individual or actual or potential harm to others; a paraphilic disorder Pedohpilia definition 1. a paraphilia in which an adult desires or engages in sexual relations with a child; it may be either homosexual or heterosexual in nature. adj., adj pedophilic. 2.arousing fantasies of engaging or repeatedly engages in sexual activity with a prepubertal child.pedophilic
Speciesism is unjustified given a preference utilitarian framework

==Definitions==1) He offers the definition of preference utilitarianism from this site: http://www.utilitarianism.com...However, this site actually says "Moral theory according to which the good consists in the satisfaction of people's preferences...Thus, for his sake we should use this definition: preference utilitarianism.... "rests on the claim that what is good is desire satisfaction or the fulfillment of preferences; and what is bad is the frustration of desires or preferences." [1]But, l'll leave the option up to him which he would rather use. 2) Speciesm is fine.3) Permissibility is fine and unjustifiable is fine. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Speciesism is unjustified given a preference utilitarian framework

===Overview===Pro will argue for the unjustiability of Speciesism while Con will either argue for the permissibility of Speciesism or at the very least refute whatever points Pro brings in support of the resolution. Both debaters must argue from a preference utilitarian framework. This means that preference utilitarianism will be assumed at the outset of this debate to be a sound ethical theory. It's validity will not be the subject of this debate. Permissibility or unjusifiabilty of Speciesism must be based off of the basic tenets of preference utilitarianism.===Definitions===Preference utilitarianism (PU) is the ethical theory which purports that moral actions are those which cause or add to the satisfaction of the most preferences. PU is a type of utilitarianism but replaces general happiness or welfare with the satisfactions of preferences.[1]Speciesism is the act or support of discriminating or treating members of different species differently purely on the basis of their membership in their respective species. In most cases they will hold their own species in higher favor (notably humans).[2]Permissibility means that an action is allowed under a specific ethical system though not necessarily positively supported (an example being personal thoughts under a general rights-based approach to ethics), something that is not prohibited but not prescribed. Unjustifiability means that an action is positively prohibited under a specific ethically system, an example being murder under Kantian Deontolgy.Debating will begin in R2. R1 is for agreement on terms and definitions and for acceptance. I wish my opponent the best of luck.===Sources===[1] http://www.utilitarianism.com... [2] http://www.richardryder.co.uk...
Oryus is a troll

I thank my esteemed opponent for this debate challenge and happily accept. The word troll has not been defined, so I will reasonably assume my opponent is referring to the most common use of the word. The word "troll" is a verb which refers to various actions. It could mean the causing of something to move "round and round," it could mean to "sing loudly," and it also has various implications with fishing. Either way, it is a verb. And as we all know, a person cannot be a verb. A person might be able to *do* a verb, but it cannot *be* a verb. As you can see from my photo, I have clearly reached the age of 2. So even by the most stringent of definitions I am indeed a person and am therefore not capable of being a verb which means that I am also not capable of being "a" troll. To sum up: I am a person (even by the most stringent definitions) The word "troll" is a verb. A person cannot be a verb. Conclusion: I am not a troll. Thank you, dear readers. Vote Con In case there is any confusion regarding my definitions: http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Nietzsche's death of God lead to today's culture that produces school shooters.

Please elaborate how Jungs analysis of personality is incompatible with Christian thought? The idea of you as a sovereign being made in God's image allows personality to exist and be analysed. Various analyses of that personally can exist in concurrence with that thought. Some religious thinking is more deterministic in witch case God simply willed the shadow to exist but most Christian thought is that for you to love God truly you must have the capacity to not love God and suppress your inner drive to him.
Nietzsche's death of God lead to today's culture that produces school shooters.

In 1848 Friedrich Nietzsche pronounced the death of God. He an atheist is referring to the decline of religion in the common man and the rise of more materialist ideologies (Communism, Nationalism and true racism in a Darwinian Malthusian sense or Nazism). I posit that this same force a movement away from the church (not even God let's not get into that for times sake) has created mass and school shootings.
Nietzsche's death of God lead to today's culture that produces school shooters.

This video is hilarious. Check it out. http://www.youtube.com... "The Star Wars Kid was just goofing off at school. Now he finds his private performance downloaded by over 15 million Internet users across the world. The Star Wars Kid is a 15-year-old from Quebec known only as Ghyslain -- his parents are keeping his last name secret to protect his identity. Back in November 2002, Ghyslain was goofing off at a school video studio and recorded himself fighting a mock battle with a golf ball retriever lightsaber. Over two minutes, the video shows the lone, overweight teenager twirling his mock lightsaber ever faster while making his own accompanying sound effects. Yes, we've all had our dorky, private moments, but this poor kid is living the nightmare of having his private dorkiness projected across the world to giggling Web users. His friends found the tape, and uploaded it to KaZaA as a joke on April 19. Within two weeks, someone had added full Star Wars special effects and sound effects to the tape. Currently, new clone videos are being created at the rate of 1 per day!" ~ http://www.jedimaster.net...
Stephen Curry is overrated

Before we discuss, we need to know what overrated means.have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved.Pro thinks Steph Curry is overated, but I don't think so. Averagin 29.3 points a game is certainly not overated. His rankings in the NBAScoring: 1stFG%: 2nd3 pointers made: 1st It's also worth mentioning that his Golden State Warriors have the best record in the NBA right now, and have only lost 2 games. Stats aside, teamwork and being a leader are also important for players. The Golden State Warriors would not be playing as well without him.It's not fair to compare him to Lebron James, because both are different position players and are different body physiques. Curry is a much better off the dribble 3 point shooter, but Lebron is obviously a better dunker.http://espn.go.com...I believe Steph Curry is not overrated for the reasons stated above. Just because some players perform better, doesn't make him overrated. The Warriors would not have such a good team record here without him
Stephen Curry is overrated

This argument is not going to be about who is better or who he is better than. This is just going to prove that Stephen Curry is a very overrated player in the game. The deal is that Curry has been the called the 'Greatest Basketball Player in the World' and I just can't accept that. One-Way Player Curry is what you call a one way basketball player meaning that the only thing he specializes in is shooting the ball. Curry is not the greatest defender although he tries to show his defensive skills by getting a lot of steals. But, I'm going to tell you that stealing the ball does not make you a good defender. A way to show this is that Kawhi Leonard (probably the best perimeter defender in the league) nearly averages 1 less steal per game than Curry. Given that, Curry is averaging 29.3 ppg on 51% shooting. This is where Curry is deadly, the most deadly. But, if we're going to put him at the top of the world just because he can score then why wasn't Carmelo Anthony ahead of LeBron when he averaged 32 a game? Why wasn't Kevin Durant ahead of LeBron when he averaged 30 a game? This is what leads me to believe that Curry is overrated. But, no I don't believe he is the all-around PG in the game. That goes to Rondo in my perspective. A point guard was meant to dish the ball more than he shoots and that's something Steph cannot do. He averages barely 6 assists a game... as a point guard. With the team he has (I'll come back to that in later rounds) he should be averaging over 10. Curry is a one-way basketball player.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should not ban abortion.

The fifth amendment to the constitution says:"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."According to this clause, the fundamental human rights of life, liberty, and property should not be infringed without due process of law, last I checked, the woman is not Judge, Jury, and executioner, an abortion clinic is not a court of law, and "it's my body" isn't a legitimate violation to constitute the death penalty. Thus, abortion ought to be banned.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should not ban abortion.

RulesFirst Round is Rules and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con. Second Round is Opening Arguments, no rebuttals by Con. Third Round is Rebuttals. Forth Round is defend your own arguments. No semanticsNo machine gunning argumentsNo source spamming. No Google docsSources may be placed in the comments section if needed. Minimum ELO to vote is 2000. A violation of any of the above rules shall result in an automatic forfeiture of the person who violated the rules. DefinitionsUnited States Federal Government- The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States or to the people. (. http://definitions.uslegal.com...) Abortion- Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetusfrom the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. (. http://www.dictionary.com...) Should- must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): (. http://www.dictionary.com...)
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should not ban abortion.

First of all, you say I violated the rules but not what rule I violated, forfeiture sure, but I had 5 other debates going. And like you said, Chinese Law is not the law of the land right? Either way a Chinese person is still a person. And you dropped my point in regards to the 14 amendment, just because it grants protections to a group of people doesn't mean that all other groups are excluded, and as I stated before, the 8th amendment insures this right to all persons. A person is a human being, some thing with a complete human genome as well as a functioning system of organs. So your comparison of sperm is irrelevant since sperm do. It have a complete human genome and conception doesn't separate the cell into an organised basis, and sperm doesn't have functional organs. Also, a fetus isn't a human until 40 days, so the mother should do an abortion before that 400 day Mark.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should not ban abortion.

As a result, "A violation of any of the above rules shall result in an automatic forfeiture of the person who violated the rules. " Even if I lose every other argument, we can see that I would still win this debate since he violated the rules of the debate. Contention 1: The Constitution Battle My opponent's statement on "women body is not the fetus body" is rediculious. I could simply say, since sperm is alive men shouldn't masterbate. It's a very similar argument. As for the DoI, it doesn't matter as that's not the law of the land, the Constitution is. Of course you would get arrested since you broke Chinese law and the US would arrest you and turn you over to the Chinese. My opponent stated that the 8th Amendment protects, PERSONS, but he never actually defines what a person is. The 14th Amendment claims that you are an American citizen when you are born and a fetus is unborn, thus not a citizen, nor a person. Here I would like to ask my opponent, which would you perfer, the mother give birth, but die in the process where the child might not even survive either, or abort the child to let the mother live? Either way, this is a catch-22, either way, my opponent will select a non-Pro-Life answer. Contention 2: Abortion reduces crime. I find it funny that my opponent states "Corelation is not causation" and then provides just that. His own argument negates itself. My study was one that actually observed the two events in actions and studied them, while my opponent just pulled numbers from random.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should not ban abortion.

Sorry, I had issues accessing this debate, here is my response:The right to privacy:Actually, the woman body is not the fetus's body, that's why they're called the fetus's and woman's bodies, the woman may have the right to own her body, but she has no right to own the fetus's body. Also, if you want to read the Declaration of independence it says that everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and property. If I went to China and murdered someone, then came back to the US and got caught, I'd get arrested, even though it wasn't an American citizen. The 14th amendment says that people are citizens by being born in the US because you can know when someone is born, not when they are conceived, and it doesn't deprive protections to people not born in the US, it only guarantees them to those who are. Also, see the 8th amendment, it says NO PERSONS, not just American Citizens.Abortion reduces crime:No, corelation is not causation, besides, I could point out a different coorelation which shows the opposite, in Switzerland, the abortion rate is 7.1 per 1,000 women {1}, in the Uited States it is 13.9 per 1,000 women {2}, the US has 12,555 homicides a year, Switzerland has 42 {3}. {1}. https://en.wikipedia.org... {2}. http://www.operationrescue.org... {3}. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Recreational Marijuana Legalization

I will start as my opponent has by supplying my main argument. I believe that marijuana should not be legalized for many reasons. The first reason I would like to convey is that the health risks for marijuana outweigh the benefits. Marijuana use has been proven to weaken the immune system, increase risk for pneumonia and lung infection as well as causing psychosis in users that has resulted in death. Long term smoking of marijuana has even been linked to lung cancer. In addition to this, it demotes learning abilities days after use in students and the legalization would increase the number of intoxicated drivers on the road[1]. Also, the legalization would be a significant economic opportunity for drug dealers. As possession would not be illegal, it would be more convenient to purchase marijuana from a drug dealer untaxed than it would be to buy it for extra at the store. To continue that thought, the easy access given by the state would make it easier for it to get into the hands of minors. In addition to this, legalization would (contrary to some beliefs) provoke drug cartels based in Mexico[2]. "The 2014 UN World Drug Reportfound a "large increase" in the number of methamphetamine laboratories seized in Mexico and the United States. " "'Between 2013 and 2014, U. S. Customs and Border Protection saw an increase in seizures of heroin, up 5.2 percent, and methamphetamine, up 9.8 percent,' U. S. Customs and Border Protection media spokesman Carlos Lazo told Fusion. " "DEA spokesman Lawrence Payne told NPR last year that 'Sinaloa operatives in the United States are reportedly buying high-potency American marijuana in Colorado and smuggling it back into Mexico for sale to high-paying customers. '" Sinaloa is a region in Mexico infamous for cartel activity. Lastly, the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal shouldn't determine whether marijuana should be. I do not deny that alcohol and tobacco can be harmful, but releasing another harmful substance to the public will in no way change that nor have a positive effect. It is simply adding another harmful substance into the mix. Marijuana is more intoxicating than alcohol and tobacco. Upon having a drink, the vast majority of humans will be under the legal limit and be able to drive[3]. Upon "smoking a bowl" of marijuana, one will be intoxicated, or "high". Tobacco does not have intoxicating factors like alcohol or marijuana. It does not take a single drink to get drunk, yet it takes one joint or bowl to get high. Giving the public access to this would increase the number of intoxicated drivers because it is adding another variable to the equation. Driving stoned is very dangerous[4] and a public safety risk as use has been proven to increase where it is legal[5]. For example, if X is drinkers and Y is intoxicated drivers, we have X=Y. If we legalize marijuana, then we would have X Z=Y. It would be dangerous and unfair to the American people to legalize marijuana. [1] . http://www.usatoday.com... [2] . http://fusion.net... [3] . http://dui.drivinglaws.org... [4] . http://www.ibtimes.com... [5] . http://www.denverpost.com...
The Children Of Today Have An Edge Over The Adults In Exposure And Opportunities

Hey Kev, happy holidays (there thats politically correct) First, I disagree that things do change with time. Before, some drugs weren't illegal. For example, LSD. The Beatles used to do LSD and then sing about it in their music (LLucy in the SSky with DDiamonds). Now it has been illegalized. Also, cigarettes used to be huge, but over time, they banned them from the airwaves. Yes all of you people who don't know, thats why cigarettes are never on TV. Now, cigarette use is going down. Last, not very long ago, the Mitchell Report came out for baseball players on steroids. The administration (Bob Selig) is now ready to take serious action on any players in the report. Also Kev, people wouldn't sit around all day if they don't want to. They can watch stocks when they feel like going on their computor, and work a good job at the same time. Before, I exagerated to make my point, but that's the great thing about this country. People can make a ton of money in the stock market, and then work a good job on top of it. This country has a ton of financial possibilities that come with it. Last, I have to say that my brother is 17. He is the most lazy kid you will meet in your whole life and he works at Shoprite, probably the most boring place to work. But he loves to work. I mean, as soon as he turned sixteen he started putting in job applications. Kids like him want to get out of the house and earn some money of their own so they can have more freedom. Nowadays Kev, teenagers are so pleased with the thought of independance, driving in their own car, and hanging around with their friends any time they want, that they will work their butts off to get that privelidge. Finally, I do agree that kids aren't the same and the media is getting to them very easily. I mean, anytime a little kid walks into a store he wants to get something just because he saw it on TV. But, alot of people are also working to filter out the media and make it into something positive. I think in a few years, the media will be a positive influence for America's youth. See ya in 08 man. Have a great Christmas.