BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The drinking age should be lowered to 18

You do make some good points, however, I am going to talk about maturity now and bring in some of the other points at a later time. On maturity, while there are many 18 y.o who join the military there are many more who don't, because they are not fully mature. I have read that the brain does not fully mature until about 25. That being said, there is definitely alot of maturing still needed within that time period of 18 to 25 and adding things like alcohol can impair that maturing. I also think it would be a bad influence on teens around 15-17 year olds, being that many 18 year olds "hang out" with younger teens. There are also alot of teens who are 18 still in high school, which makes it even more possible to influence the younger teens. In the article that I have posted below, it also states that teens become more aggressive around the age of 16 and with drinking this can cause a rise in violence. If you would like to elaborate some of your other points more, I will respond to them ion the following rounds. :) http://www.foxnews.com...
The drinking age should be lowered to 18

Very well then. The way I see it, citizens of the United States of America are legally adults when they turn 18. They are able to drive, vote in elections, and even decide to join the armed forces. The not only have the opportunity the make important life dicisions, but they have to make decisions that will effect the rest of their life. With all of this said, why can we not trust them to make the right decision with alcohol? Besides, its no secret that there are a large number of teenagers that are already parttaking in drinking anyway. Lowering the drinking age might actually curtail the amount of underage drinking. Some of them like the fact that they are breaking the law, they get a kick out of this act of definance. Lowering the age to 18 would get rid of this rebellious factor in their attitudes, and might actually decrease the amount of drinking.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Euthanasia.

Unfortunately, my school is in conflict with my debating time. I have talked to Lannan13, and he has graciously allowed me to have the same debate him after I finish my stuff for school.I ask nobody vote on this debate, as this isn't concession. The debate will continue when I return, and both me and my opponent will be allowed to copy our arguments. So please vote on that instead.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Euthanasia.

Rules Round 1 is for terms and definitions by Con and acceptance by Pro. Round 2 is for opening arguments only, no rebuttals. Round 3 is for rebuttals. Round 4 is for rebuttals and conclusions. No semantics. No trolling. No profanity. USFG- The government of the United States ofAmerica is the federal government of theconstitutional republic of fifty states thatconstitute the United States, as well as onecapital district, and several other territories. The federal government is composed of threedistinct branches: legislative, executive andjudicial, which powers are vested by the U. S. Constitution in the Congress, the President,and the federal courts, including the SupremeCourt, respectively; the powers and duties ofthese branches are further defined by acts ofCongress, including the creation of executivedepartments and courts inferior to the SupremeCourt. (. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...) Should- Used to express obligation or duty (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Legalize- to make lawful or legal (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Euthanasia- Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medicalmeasures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Queen is the Best Rock Band of All Time

True, there is media that judges what people consider are the best movies and therefore best bands out there. But this is very much subject to change. For example, it is very difficult to consider on a wide scale what the WORST movie of all time is. If you think about the logic's; judging what is considered worse follows the same principles as judging what is considered best. Do we look at this an atrocity of a film and judge it on animation quality? Voice acting quality? Storyline quality? What if said movie has extremely good voice actors but a really bad storyline? What makes a movie truly the worst? What Makes a movie truly the best? What makes a band the best? Yes. A wide range of ability in a band perhaps even ability which is not necessarily needed could make the band the greatest. But you have to have a factor you can judge in proportion to all other bands. It's not plausible. But but buuuuut but but!! Judging what bands you personally like, what bands you have personally fallen deeply in love with is extremely fun. My favourite bands is impending doom, a stark contrast from the likes of Abba. However, do I consider impending doom to be the best in the world? No I don't because in practicality I cannot. To a certain degree I also would not want them to be. Let's look for a second at musical pieces from the past. Beethoven's 5th symphony. Green Sleeves. These songs have tested the wear of time and Green Sleeves is about 400 years old. Perhaps we can only judge a truly great band when we have heard how well their music ages and I'm not talking about 40-50 years I'm talking 400-500 years. Then I would be happy to say that Queen is the best band ever, because that is the largest factor you can compare in music. Sadly...it's not possible within ones lifetime. In my stark opinion. I believe that to state outright that a band is best is not fair because music has a wide range of genres and types that different people enjoy. I think it's wonderful that you love such a inspiring band, and I am by no means saying Queen is not one of the greatest bands ever but I can't lower my defences safely to state fairly that Queen is the best ever. Thank you for your time :)
Queen is the Best Rock Band of All Time

Thank you for your opening statements. It's perfectly fine that you're using a mobile device. Yes, while I see your points, I think Queen is the best rock band on their own merits. I'm a fan of Abba, so I'll compare Queen and Abba for the sake of proving a point. Abba is classified mostly as bubblegum pop music, while Queen, though taking a variety of styles, is classic rock. There is a clear difference between the two, but both are considered great bands, even if Abba doesn't get as much recognition. I looked up a list for the best movies of all time, according to IMDB. This is what I found in the first ten alone: 1) The Shawshank Redemption 2) The Godfather 3) The Godfather: Part II 4) The Dark Knight 5) Schindler's List 6) Pulp Fiction 7) 12 Angry Men 8) The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 9) The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly 10) Fight Club If you at least know what these movies are about, then you'll see that they're very different. Relating to my point, even movies (or bands) in the same genre can have opposite direction and tone. And different genres like pop and country? People are still able to judge which is better than the other based on its own merits rather than just the range of the singer and the behind-the-scenes production. While Christina Aguilera can definitely it high notes that Johnny Cash can't reach, he brings thoughtfulness, charisma, and that oddly soothing raspy voice to draw you in. For a band to have both, like Queen does, is simply fantastic. Relating back to the movies list, how is one to judge what The Dark Knight does better than Pulp Fiction? I would say what they both have, what they exceed at, and the unique things they bring to the movie in turn. The same can definitely be said for music. Lastly, you're right that The Beatles and Elvis had a bigger impact. For this I'll be comparing movies again, but they aren't on the list. They will be Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. I'm comparing these two because they fit your example of Queen vs. The Beatles. While Raiders of the Lost Ark may have done it first and had more influence doesn't mean that Last Crusade can't be better. Last Crusade may not have been unique for the time, but in some aspects, it's better than Raiders of the Lost Ark. With this, I say there aren't too many factors to be accounted for when judging music, as other media outlets have done this without difficulty. Thank you.
Queen is the Best Rock Band of All Time

The change of rules is absolutely fine. I'm typing this on my phone so please excuse any typos because I'm sure there will be :) I have a huge respect for Queen and I also love their songs so please don't take what I argue the wrong way. I feel it is important never to state that something is better than another outright simply because there are differences. For example: I love EDM and heavy metal. EDM tends to have no vocals, and focuses on electronic sounds. Is Queen therefore better because it contains singing? No. In a similar way, but constituting a very different problem is heavy metal. Some heavy metal contains screaming. Screaming requires a lot of practice and developed skill to be able to do. Many heavy metal artist have a huge range of screaming ranges as well as large singing ranges and are therefore able to produce a wide variety of vocal ability, which is very interesting to hear. Freddy has a bigger singing ranges, yes but he has a screaming range of presumably 0. True, Freddy had no need to scream, but I'm useing it as an example to show that what is considered better by some is considered none necessary by others. The Beatles had much more influence on society than Queen due to its advantage of it's troubled era, the Beatles had more influence on music as a whole and introduced aspects respected by queen like the use of odd sounds and different vocal types. If you listsen to artists Luke the Beatles or producers like Elvis you can definitely hear why they had an impact and, while I'm not saying Queen had no impact on music because they did too, I'm saying that other artist like the Beatles did more to set up a musical structure for popular rock in the future. Queen follows a structure that is not unique for the time. In conclusion, it is impossible to say that a band is the best because there are simply too many factors.
Given a strong enough computer, the game of chess can be solved so that one player can never lose.

1) "Neither would be able to win if both knew everything about chess. It would always be in a draw. They would never lose to anyone, and would almost always win against others, because it could know what all the potential choices of its opponent are, and choose the move that leaves no counter. I never said it would be able to beat itself, just anything beneath itself. There is nothing above it." I'm saying if we made two of these computers and they faced eachother, one of them would win and one of them would lose. not it face itself. 2) "Just because it would be a huge program doesn't mean it can't be done: hence the term, "given a strong enough computer". Time is not an issue. The person making the program would not have to know all of it. The people who made the checkers program didn't know all of it, yet they made a computer program that always wins. It's the same logic. How much more complex it is doesn't matter. Checkers is a lot more complex that tic-tac-toe, but it was still possible. Making a program to never lose tic-tac-toe is the same concept, but much more basic. It's the same type of game: No luck, all skill, the only difference between player A and player B is who goes first." Checkers is alot less complex than checkers like i said. You can make a way to beat checkers but because its clear to see all the moves you can make. in chess it is not the case you can only do a certain amout of moves and you have to understand each and every move you can make. NEW ARGUMENT He also states in the resolution strong enough computer... it doesn't matter how strong the computer is if it doesn't have a good enough program with that i strongly urge a negative vote and Thank you for your time.
Given a strong enough computer, the game of chess can be solved so that one player can never lose.

"1)Computer He tries to state that neither would be able to win but eventually given enough times one of them would beat the other." Neither would be able to win if both knew everything about chess. It would always be in a draw. They would never lose to anyone, and would almost always win against others, because it could know what all the potential choices of its opponent are, and choose the move that leaves no counter. I never said it would be able to beat itself, just anything beneath itself. There is nothing above it. "2)Making the computer He states it would have to have extensive knowledge compacted into the computer but that's my point exactly that would be a huge program first of all and second of all that would take a while to make and third of all the person making the program would have to know all this extensive knowledge... chess is alot more complex than checkers" Just because it would be a huge program doesn't mean it can't be done: hence the term, "given a strong enough computer". Time is not an issue. The person making the program would not have to know all of it. The people who made the checkers program didn't know all of it, yet they made a computer program that always wins. It's the same logic. How much more complex it is doesn't matter. Checkers is a lot more complex that tic-tac-toe, but it was still possible. Making a program to never lose tic-tac-toe is the same concept, but much more basic. It's the same type of game: No luck, all skill, the only difference between player A and player B is who goes first. "Thank you." Gracias.
Given a strong enough computer, the game of chess can be solved so that one player can never lose.

1)Computer He tries to state that neither would be able to win but eventually given enough times one of them would beat the other. 2)Making the computer He states it would have to have extensive knowledge compacted into the computer but that's my point exactly that would be a huge program first of all and second of all that would take a while to make and third of all the person making the program would have to know all this extensive knowledge... chess is alot more complex than checkers Thank you.
Given a strong enough computer, the game of chess can be solved so that one player can never lose.

Now to respond to something. "1)Computer What if you have two computers that are both very good at chess its going to go back and forth on who wins. It won't be a draw everytime that my opponent might try to state because the job of the computer is to win not to stall long enough so they have to draw they will keep going until they can absolutely win." The point is, neither would be able to win. If winning would be possible, it would either white would always win, or black would always win, which I already stated as "always winning" in the second sentence. There is a finite number of possible combinations for the pieces to be on a chess board. From each of these combinations, there is a finite number of moves. Thus, there is a finite amount of possible games that could be played. http://mathworld.wolfram.com...... "2)Make The Computer to make this computer the person making this would have to able to win everytime becuase to make a computer to win a certain game you have to write an immense amount of code and so it won't always win unless the person writing the code always wins which i don't think anybody thus far has" Not really. It could be extensive knowledge, compacted into the computer. If a computer could get the data for every combination, then figure out how to get to all the optimal ones, and how to avoid all the ones that would end in defeat, it would be able to win. http://www.odysseymagazine.com...... Do a Ctrl+F for "checkers" and you should find the article. Checkers has been solved, and clearly the people who made it didn't know every combination, they let the computer find that out. So why not chess? It would just take that much more data, but it is possible. Thank you.
Given a strong enough computer, the game of chess can be solved so that one player can never lose.

ARGUMENTS 1)Computer What if you have two computers that are both very good at chess its going to go back and forth on who wins. It won't be a draw everytime that my opponent might try to state because the job of the computer is to win not to stall long enough so they have to draw they will keep going until they can absolutely win. 2)Make The Computer to make this computer the person making this would have to able to win everytime becuase to make a computer to win a certain game you have to write an immense amount of code and so it won't always win unless the person writing the code always wins which i don't think anybody thus far has Thank You
Given a strong enough computer, the game of chess can be solved so that one player can never lose.

I will answer my opponent's questions. "1)if your resolution has lose then why do you have the definition of win" 1. It doesn't hurt to throw in other semi-relevant definitions. After all, if you win, you clearly don't lose. "2)and are we arguing chess or all the other games you named." 2. We are arguing chess. The other games were just examples of other solvable, non-luck strategy games. Which would include tic-tac-toe as well. I await my opponent's response.
Given a strong enough computer, the game of chess can be solved so that one player can never lose.

The game of chess is solvable. Given enough data, a player, either white or black, I don't know which, would always be able to win or draw, despite the millions of possible combinations on the board. This also applies to other similar non-luck strategy games, including checkers, Khet, and Chinese Chess. I will continue my argument after my opponent responds. Definitions: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... solvable: susceptible of solution or of being solved, resolved, or explained (in this case, the solution is an extremely large set of strategies that can be applied to any situation possible on a chess board that can be reached by using previous strategies. I can explain further if asked. ) By win, I mean getting a checkmate, by draw, I mean resulting in a stalemate or draw, and by loss, I mean getting checkmated.
AI can't fully replace writers simply because of the way humans are.

As you said, our AI technology is getting better and better, which means eventually we will be able to create an AI that can write stories that perfectly imitates human stories. In fact, I believe they will be able to write stories better than humans do. 1. To your point that humans like humans, yes we do like other humans. However, we don't read stories because they are written by humans. I would bet just about everyone would be interested in a book written by a super intelligent dolphin. In your experiment, what if they weren't told which stories are written by AI? Most human writers really aren't that good and it wouldn't be surprising if the AI's works are better. Would they go back to reading worse stories just because it's written by a human? Sure some people would be stubborn, but what about their children? We only like other humans only when they are familiar. There is a big difference between how white people and black people treat each other now compared to when they first made contact. It wouldn't be surprising for AI to be indistinguishable from humans in the future and live alongside us. 2. You are assuming that all AI is going to be the same and basically understand everything that ever is. Maybe one day we will create an AI so advanced we can't even understand it, but there is no reason an AI designed to write humans for stories would write stories beyond our level. There isn't only one type of AI; we already create different AI that specialize at different things. I'd say most of the AI created in the future will stay at our level of intelligence since they are made by us in the first place, the exception would be AI created by another AI that is designed to make itself more advanced. 3. If perfection is the biggest flaw, you can simply design the AI to not be perfect, which I would say is easier than creating a perfect AI that writes perfect stories. You are mistaken in thinking that AI are perfect beings since they are far from that. Whether you want to admit it or not, about all stories written by humans follow some form of formula that appeal to our human psychology. An AI writer can simply designed to appeal to that psychology better. We seek the same kind of things in our stories. Some sort of conflict, some sort of climax, some sort of characters we can relate to etc. There is no perfect stories, AI simply has the potential to write better stories. Humans will obviously always be able to write unless we are enslaved by our AI overlords or we go extinct but it is certainly possible for Artificial Intelligence to fully replace writers, as in people who write as a living.
AI can't fully replace writers simply because of the way humans are.

AI is becoming quite good, and it will continue to get better. There is already an AI that can right short stories called Shelley. If AI continues down the path it's on, super-intelligent AI, and therefore super-intelligent AI writers, are right around the corner. But I just don't think they can replace human writers for a few reasons. 1. Humans like humans. I bet if you were to give a short story to 10 humans and told 5 of them the story they are about to read was written by an AI and told the other 5 it was written by a human, the humans who were told it was written by an AI would like it less than the humans told it was written by another human. That's entirely hypothetical though. The only evidence I have for that is the way people react when they see advanced robots or AI. I know people will become more accepting of AI in the future, but people will probably always have bias towards machines. 2. Humans can only understand things to a certain point. An AI writer can't write stories that are so advanced humans literally couldn't understand it if they tried. Try showing a monkey a story a human wrote, it wouldn't come close to understanding it. Same would go for humans if an AI wrote a story that was made to be at it's level of understanding. Because humans have a limit to what they understand, stories written by AI literally can't be smarter, deeper, more complex than what a human can write. 3. Perfection is the biggest flaw. You know what people say if you get a dent in your car or a scar on your arm, "It builds character." It sounds like something someone would say just to try and make what happened seem less bad, but it's true. If you read a story, there are bound to be a few things that don't make sense, things that seem dumb, things that are just factually incorrect, but that usually doesn't make me dislike the story, in my opinion at least. Whenever I see a flaw in a story, I get reminded that this story was written by a human, an imperfect being that's bound to make mistakes, and I feel a weird... Happiness? I don't know how to describe it. I know other people are like this too, so it feels like if someone made an AI that could write stories humans could understand but at the same time they had no flaws, people would like the stories a lot less. If a robot that made stories that humans could understand and were at least a little flawed, it's something that's no better than a human writer, which as I've explained, is the best writer. And if it's not better than a human writer, it can't replace them. Sure, they might be thousands of times faster and might make up the majority of books for sale, but they can still never replace good old human writers. That's my argument anyways. What's yours?