BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Current Drinking Age

Okay, so you make a good point about the vandalization. But I think that would only be a problem in big cities, as we already have that problem anyway. Also about the high school students, a lot of them already drink intensively and on school nights. If they had the ability to do it without getting some type of misdemeanor, they would get tired of it, seeing as they do it as a part of "not getting caught" for the fun. Being able to go to war and see thousands of people die and shoot at people to me is so much worse than drinking an alcoholic beverage. The first 3 below comments all make great points I might add. I also found a lot of good information on this website. http://alcohol.bitglyph.com... You might humor yourself with things you didn't know. Anyway, I don't think there would be much of a problem if we lowered the drinking age.
Current Drinking Age

Okay yes the United States has the highest drinking age in the world , however do we as a country have to follow everyone else's example? If your friend jumps off a roof are you going to as well? There are many policies and laws that are different in the US than other countries , it does not mean we have to follow the popular opinion. Thats why we are our own country. As for underage drinking being a problem here , so lets adopt the same age as other countries. Don't be mistaken , other countries have underage drinking as well. Ireland is 18 and they have had to tighten the laws extremely because it was getting out of hand with both underage drinking and drinking and driving. They have the same problems as us , yet they just have the problem a bit younger.Scotland is also 18 and they have such a problem with underage drinking that they have had to remove playgrounds , because kids were congregating and desicrating the parks... hmmmm maybe they should change their drinking age to 15 or 16. Why have an age at all , then there won't be any underage drinking. My next argument, is you are obviously not of the drinking age, as I have seen you debating about your school, if Im incorrect please let me know , so your opinion really as anonlegal drinker is you don't understand fully the responsibility as a legal drinker. Also take into account that many of these counties , at least in Europe, where the drinking age is lower , finish school earlier than Americans. So for us to lower the drinking age we are letting some HS students drink. I think the solution is to be stricter about enforcing the laws. More serious consequences for underage drinking and drinking and driving.
Current Drinking Age

The current drinking age is extremely to high. It should be lowered to 18 for the following reasons: >You can buy tobacco products at 18 >You can die for your country at 18 >Some people start their lives at 18 >You get to vote at age 18. So why not drink. The drinking age in the United States is the highest in the world. (http://www2.potsdam.edu...) Also, there's still loads of underage drinking going on, so maybe if it was lowered, we wouldn't have much of a problem.
God Debate

Thank you for that response Pro. Rebuttal: I found your response to be quite confusing. I understood that it was mostly about a cloth/shroud that Jesus supposedly wore. I do not see the connection between this and what we are debating. This does not prove God’s existence at all, yet proves that a man was wrapped in this cloth when he died that could maybe be Jesus. This leaves me in an awkward position for there is nothing to rebut. Pro’s entire argument was scientific research and no argument. Pro has also not done a rebuttal so nothing to rebut there either. Since there were no arguments made , there are no arguments to defeat. Since this is my last response of the debate this leaves in me in a bad situation. But since there were no arguments, there are no arguments to rebut, thus making this a short rebuttal. Conclusion: This is my last response of the debate. This has been an enjoyable debate and I look forward to its outcome. I have put forth many arguments and so has my opponent. This debate is now in the hands of the voters. Thank you! (And could luck getting over your sickness :D)
God Debate

Arguments: “As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. ” Psalm 18:30 “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. ” Matthew 5:48 “The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; “ Psalm 19:7 From this evidence from the Bible we can conclude without a doubt that God is perfect. Something is deemed ‘perfect’ when it conforms completely to an ideal standard of that thing, which entails that it cannot be any better. Thus a perfect thing will have no flaws, defects, lacks, weaknesses, disadvantages; it will not possess any negative feature or lack of positive feature that pushes it away from the ideal. Since this being is perfect, it cannot create imperfect things thus it would losing its perfection. But this God makes many mistakes, many imperfections. Such as leaving Adam and Eve alone with the Tree of Good and Evil, making humans evil so that he would have to later murder them all in a flood, letting his son be murdered, creating Satan, creating cancer, creating earthquakes, etc. A perfect being cannot perform imperfect acts, yet God does. Therefore God does not exist. Now to my second point. The bible does not literally say, “The Earth is 6,000 years old. ” But upon examination it does. By following the genealogy from Adam all the way to present day, it rounds out to be around 6,000 years old. But there are fossils that date from around 3.5 billion years ago. This obviously contradicts itself. If the universe is 6,000 years old, then how can any type of matter exist before that? That is literally impossible. Therefore God cannot exist. To my final point. “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. " John 4:24 Since God is a spirit, then this God can not possess within himself any physical form. Without possessing physical form this being does not consist of matter. If a being does not contend with physical matter then this being cannot occupy space, thus not existing. Conclusion: From my three main arguments I conclude that God does not exist. Pro in their next argument will be arguing their point that God exists. I ask my opponent to prove to me that God exists through evidence. Thank you and I wish Pro the best of luck. . https://www.biblegateway.com... . http://www.independent.co.uk... The Holy Bible
God Debate

This debate will be on the existence of God, of the Christian origin. As Con, I will be arguing against the notion that a God exists. My opponent, as Pro will be arguing in favor of a God. I intend to hold a respectful and serious debate on this subject. Rules: Forfeiting is an automatic loss. First round is acceptance only. Definitions: God: (In Christianity) the Supreme being that created life, the universe, and moral authority. A supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient being. Faith: Strong belief in something in which there is no evidence or proof. Theist: Someone who has belief in god(s). Atheist: Someone who lacks belief in god(s). Conclusion: I would like to debate someone who would like to defend their position as a Theist. I look forward to this debate and welcome my opponent.
You do mathematical computations everyday

Okay, I will make my point very clear and concise in just a few minutes... I just want to comment on some of your answers for I agree to your points... You are 100% correct when you talk about technology and the advancements the human race has created. My point to this question was to simply find out if you could complete this task of telling time which leads me to my next question of adhering to a schedule.. Because if you have a schedule then you obviously had to create that schedule, and in order to complete the schedule you have to have a concept of time and know how much time is needed to fit into your everyday routine. You wouldn't schedule a class at the same time as another? Would you? Because then you have a problem.. if you have two classes that are two hours long each you are faced with having to decide when to put two hours here and two hours there.. and if you put them in the same time slot, that would make it impossible to be in two places at the same time, right? You are adding and subtracting hours out of your day... Also, if you have to be in class you obviously have to travel in order to get there, right? Because I doubt that you live in the classroom and I also doubt that every class you have is in the same classroom. So, if you don't live in the classroom then you have to travel to class.. When ever we travel we have to take into consideration the concept of time; and if we don't then we may not be able to adhere to our schedule. We have to give ourselves a certain amount of time to get from point A to point B which involves a mathematical computation. You may not be writing it down and documenting every computation but in your head you are subtracting minutes and hours out of your day to allow yourself to complete your day.
You do mathematical computations everyday

Are you a college student? Yes, what your point punk? Do you know how to tell time? Yes, I can look at a clock and determine the time but in these day and ages with all the technological advances, how can't you tell time. Clocks still have the custom little hand, and big hand but they are numbered so I'm not sure how you could not. Even if I didn't know how to tell time, I could look at my phone, or cable box, etc... Do you have a schedule to adhere to? Not really, besides having to abide by a college schedule, most of the day consist by doing random events that pop up by the day. I can say though, that there is a number of minutes that people put on doing things by but in my case, I can safely admit that having no job doesn't make you adhere by a schedule. You have so much time to do things, that you don't have plan or adhere to a schedule all the time (especially in my case).
You do mathematical computations everyday

Good Points Again But, Calculation, Smalculation! The percentage of homeless people that die is alarming, and it has to do with the lack of necessities shelter, "food", and water. I doubt a homeless person makes enough to feed themselves daily, so next time I do see one I will be real and ask them. It's a weekly thing, and most of the time they don't get enough money to even eat a healthy meal if that. It's McDonalds or the highway sadly.
You do mathematical computations everyday

You are right once again.. I see a lot of homeless people holding signs or asking for money.. I never give in to that though because I feel that there might be alternative motives behind where the money is going, such as the one's you mentioned above. Instead, I will give them food or water to satisfy their needs. I don't know how much money a homeless person makes? That is a really good question though.. Maybe you can ask the next homeless person you see how much money they make in a day? And then do the calculations yourself!
You do mathematical computations everyday

Good Points, But most homeless people hold signs out to get money, but how much do they actually get and spend on food itself? Not to be offensive to homeless people, but that money will most likely go towards booze. Obviously you need food to live but the percentage of homeless people that die is alarming because the food they obtain is not of what they earned from money. They don't have a schedule or a notepad to write down how much money they have, how much they need to get food, etc... I don't think they use math when they go about their day. Not to imply that all homeless people don't have an education but how many can actually use a calculator.
You do mathematical computations everyday

You also have a great point, and even though a homeless person may not have to follow a schedule they have to worry about necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter. They might be homeless but they still have to think about time and how long they might be without home and/or a job. They have to figure out how to make money in order to pay for their necessities. As humans, we have instincts and desires, and when we are hungry it becomes a desire to have food and it is instinctive to find the food.. and without money, it is hard to obtain food. It is most likely the case that a homeless person finds a way to make money to get the food.. and once again we have a mathematical computation because the homeless person is faced to make a decision on what he or she can now afford.
You do mathematical computations everyday

Good points But, Everyday routines vary from person to person. Not to put anyone down here, but do homeless people adhere to a schedule? I'm pretty sure there day consist of random events that come and go. I'm pretty sure that they don't take time into consideration except possibly that it's day and night. I've never been homeless so I can't speak on my behalf but I have encountered a teacher that used to be homeless. I recall him saying that it was a day by day process, and the way he did things did not consist of doing them by a pattern. Everything was random, and time wasn't a factor. He didn't write up a schedule or decide that you know what, I think I can get to this place in this amount of time, so I should leave then. Everything happened not based off time or adhering by a schedule but by each day being random.
Atheism is a more rational starting point, in theological debates, then theist.

The title of this argument isn't meant to be condescending, just to find the most rational starting point in a debate. If the debate is "is there a god" or "is god good for the world" if you are coming into the argument with a belief in a god then you are already biased. You have your own ideas of what this god is like, and if you believe that god is Yahweh and the creator of all morals, then you are going to say yes even before the debate begins. Atheist can also be biased, can look around the world at things religious people has done and say no, before the debate begins. If you were to find two rational debaters, one atheist and one theist, the atheist would have a more rational starting point, since he/she is starting from scratch. No gods. Deist on the other hand, are also coming from a starting point of "there is a god" just different from theist. They have defined god as a "creator" god, and either find him indifferent, or mildly involved, depending on the deist you talked to. So they would come into the argument with gods existence firm in their minds, and an answer already formed in their minds before the debate. Coming into a debate with no god is a more rational starting point then coming in a debate with a god theistic or deistic.
Atheism is a more rational starting point, in theological debates, then theist.

I (Con) will take the position that: Deism, not Atheism, “is a more rational starting point, in theological debates, then theist” who are dogmatic and religious based. Deist: “The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws.”http://dictionary.reference.com...Both Atheist and Deist understands the importance of the scientific method to study repeatable patterns in nature and trying to understand our place in the universe, while using those patterns to advance our standard of living. When we understand a pattern to some degree, we classify it as a Law in Nature. Through science, both Atheist and Deist recognize the current scientific view about the Big-Bang is the creation of the universe. The difference between Atheist and Deist is belief in the event entity before the Big-Bang. Today, the men of science have no empirical evidence of what caused the “Big Bang;” until then, we have faith (Deist, Theist, etc.), philosophy, and hypothetical assumptions (Atheist). Deist believes, like all Theist, God created the universe and everything in it, including the Laws of Nature. From the Deist's vantage point, the Laws of Nature is simply the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to read God's handwriting. On the other hand, for Atheist and those of faith (Theist), including preachers, prophets etc, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (“72 virgins” upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc.). Historically, many from the Theistic camp, fears the outcome of science intrudes on their belief. This is where Deism is most affective, to help bridge the fear-gap between science and myth. In general, I get the impression from Atheists, throughout many debate sites and blogs, whether intentional or not, the presentation of their ego in science demeans those of faith; and in the end, there seems to be more conflict than, the desire of “a more rational starting point.” And in saying that, I find Deist to be more sympathetic and understanding towards Theist, compared to the condescending nature from Atheist. For example, the title of this debate.
The Parental Advisory label is unnecessary and repressive

The parental advisory label was an unfair compromise that prevented something much worse from happening -- Tipper's censorship. Yes she was completely out of line for doing that. Listen that's what a store is for -- you don't like the music, don't buy it. Don't like what's on TV? Change the channel.http://books.google.com...RIAA execs say that stickering was just a comprimise to avoid being forced to do it. CensorshipTipper Gore is nothing more than a nanny state tyrant who bans stuff because it doesn't fit her views.
The Parental Advisory label is unnecessary and repressive

Please summarize your assertions/resolved point in a few sentences. Are you arguing that Tipper's actions were unnecessary? They simply tightened the rating system on this content, arguably a positive action considering that consumers can now be well informed on what they buy. Are G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 ratings on films unnecessary? No, for the same reason: people should know what they're paying for.
The Parental Advisory label is unnecessary and repressive

Accepted. Of course adult-oriented content preceded parental advisory labels (PALs). However, these labels are not slapped onto a CD, for example, without reason. The possibly controversial content could include topics not appropriate for children including but not limited to sex; drugs; violence, such as gang fights, shoot outs, grotesque imagery (such as in certain genres of metal); etc. The PALs are in place so that children are not exposed to these things. If the issue at hand is full and free access to this music by all people, then we already have an answer and the topic is not up for debate: screw the CDs, go on YouTube.That's where it goes wrong. Music had warning labels before this whole gulag (as I figuratively call it) of censorship began. Albums that had sex and profanity had warning stickers. Look at any porno album from the late 70s and 80s and you can clearly see a sticker warning them.This is different. http://www.neatorama.com...Clearly, one of the things here was an attempt to force radio and network TV not to air content. She clearly wanted to suppress demand.http://en.wikipedia.org...This wasn't concern about anything. It was them banning songs that wasn't to their liking.The parental advisory label came as a result of this, as a comprimise to fulfill Tipper's demands.It wouldn't have existed if it weren't for that
The Parental Advisory label is unnecessary and repressive

Accepted. Of course adult-oriented content preceded parental advisory labels (PALs). However, these labels are not slapped onto a CD, for example, without reason. The possibly controversial content could include topics not appropriate for children including but not limited to sex; drugs; violence, such as gang fights, shoot outs, grotesque imagery (such as in certain genres of metal); etc. The PALs are in place so that children are not exposed to these things. If the issue at hand is full and free access to this music by all people, then we already have an answer and the topic is not up for debate: screw the CDs, go on YouTube.
Firing decisions based on union status should be outlawed - NEW

Without a right to a job, it is impossible for a dismissal to be unjust.It is not unjust for an employee to be fired for race, sex, etc, and, indeed, the historical presumption of many of the authorities who outlawed such things was a "right to a job." Those should be legal as well. The employer is the only person with the right to determine the criteria by which he will hire or fire.Failure to have another choice that results in a certain arbitrarily "fair" level of wages or working conditions does not mean failure to have another choice."Bargaining power" consists of how much you have to offer, it has nothing whatsoever to do with force."Providing for oneself" was done long before employment was ever invented, it is not the employer's responsibility to provide for someone. Since it is not the employer's responsibility it cannot justify a burden on the employer.At will is at will, it is impossible to "Abuse the definition," as all things the employer wills fall under it.Kmart is not responsible for the employee's expectations. If he wishes to make them responsible, he should pursue a contract before working for a decade. Implied contracts may have some role in limiting liability (for example the implied consent to be punched by stepping into a boxing ring), but the notion of an implied contract that imposes a positive burden on someone is an extraordinary legal device which requires extraordinary justification my opponent has failed to provide. My opponent has not answered the question about how this employee got his absurd expectation to receive a pension not mentioned in any contract. There is nothing inherent to working for a decade that implies a pension."Courts have long recognized" is an ad authoritatem.Declaring that the burden of proof is preponderance in no way disproves that the burden of proof has been placed on the accused, making this argument irrelevant to my point Requiring a preponderance burden on the accused does not differ greatly in its injustice from requiring that the accused meet beyond a reasonable doubt or some other burden, the point is that the burden should never be on the accused. Furthermore, the notion of ever deciding a case on preponderance-- of ever subjecting someone to legal force on no more basis than "Meh, probably"-- is problematic in itself.A difference in bargaining power is justified by the difference in what the parties bring one another, and does not remotely justify such a miscarriage of justice.An employee happening to be a helpless dependent has nothing to do with "the rights of the employee," a construction my opponent has already conceded he will not uphold when concretized-- people speaking of "The rights of the employee" as some special class tend to refer to "Right to a job."The existence of negatives to walking away does not establish an inability to do so.