BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children should be allowed to vote

The notion that children can't take anything seriously is a myth. Nobody -- children or adults -- take anything seriously if they do not have any real responsibility. Children in our society are not given any responsibility. Adults make all their decisions for them and so there is no need for children to think. The only place they have real responsibility is with schoolwork and tests, and they are intensely serious when it comes to these. Today around the world there are many so-called democratic schools. In these schools, all decisions, including the hiring and firing of staff, are made by vote, and children get the same votes as staff. All the children take these votes very seriously. An example of such a school is the Sudbury Valley School. As Peter Gray describes Sudbury's voting process [1]: "He gives an example. "A number of years ago, there was a new teenage student who was coming to school in a black leather jacket with a swastika on it. And so, because it was offensive, it led to a desire to make a rule in the school meeting saying that you could not display a swastika on your clothing in the school." The proposed rule provoked a discussion over the limits of free speech that was, in Gray's view, "worthy of the Supreme Court." "Students quickly hit on the fact that there was a tension between limiting speech and the democratic values of the school. "There were all sorts of people taking part, mostly teenagers and staff, but every once in a while a young kid would say something too. And those who weren't talking were listening, rapt, learning about history, about Nazism, about why wearing a swastika might be exceptional, why it might be different, say, than wearing a hammer and sickle." The meeting ultimately decided to pass the rule, and it led in time to a larger rule prohibiting hate speech at the school, and distinguishing between hate speech and regular speech." [1] http://www.theatlantic.com...
Children should be allowed to vote

That is a real problem, if authoritarian parents pick the child's vote for them. It was also a problem for women, back when women's suffrage was a hot topic. Authoritarian husbands would pick their wives's votes. I don't believe the solution to such a problem is to prohibit children from voting, but rather to empower children to be more independent and protect them from coercion. The first step, as has already been done for women, is to condemn child coercion and exploitation wherever we see it happen. If you want to deny the vote to people whose brains are underdeveloped, would you also like to deny it to the mentally handicapped? Maybe we shouldn't let anyone over 80 vote either. But why stop there? Since we don't want impressionable people voting, let's take the vote away from church-going Christians, because they usually vote the way their pastor tells them to. There are plenty of minority groups for us to oppress.
Children should be allowed to vote

I reference Lukas8 in the comments when authoritarian parents will pick the child's vote for them, and also, children are highly impressionable, if one of their friends votes for Candidate whatever, then they will too. And to your statement about most adults not knowing the process, it's not a matter that they don't know, it's simply because they are not old enough, their brains are not fully developed, they're impressionable, they might have parents who choose their choices for them, etc.
Children should be allowed to vote

1. You say that children are not fully aware of this or that. But a large majority of voting adults do not understand what politicians do, or the national debt or the deficit gap. A large majority of adults pick candidates based on looks or charisma or what party they belong to. Most of the rest pick candidates based on some few issues that the voter is passionate about. So what you're saying is, kids might vote exactly the way most adults vote. Scary maybe, but that's the system we have, and we still have no basis on which to treat children differently from adults. 2. You say that kids don't pay taxes. I assume you mean things like income tax and property tax. Well, adults don't have to pay income tax if they're not working, and they don't have to pay property tax if they don't own property. But even if they do neither of these things, they still get to vote. 3. You say that kids can't be arrested. No, but they can be punished in other ways, like having their voting license suspended.
Children should be allowed to vote

Children have not yet learned the entire principles of democracy, and are not fully aware of the consequences of a candidate's actions, they don't know about the national debt, or the deficit gap, or about the views of a candidate. They might pick one based solely on his looks, or about his views on public education. Furthermore, kids don't pay taxes, so how are they entitled to a serious vote? They can't get jury duty, or be arrested for voting fraud, so how can they be held accountable for their actions if they tried to mess with votes?
Children should be allowed to vote

I believe that any citizen who wants to vote should be allowed to, including children who are old enough to read a candidate's name. Because the principle of a democracy is one-person-one-vote, if children are to be excluded the burden of proof rests on my opponent. Excluding children undermines democracy, because children are a social class like any other, with their own needs and interests. If they are not represented they will be exploited, and they are exploited immensely. Issues like education, adoption, foster care, after-school programs, curfew, and many more affect children more than any other group, and yet they are the only group that has no say. It is easy for adults in these fields to say they have children's best interests at heart, but they are never required to prove this is so, and they could just as easily be mistaken about what children really want and need. I will anticipate one counterargument, that children shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are ignorant. I would say that a large majority of voting adults are ignorant, and we let them vote anyway, while a good number of children are well informed and yet not allowed to vote. Furthermore, children are usually better informed on child-related topics such as education, etc. than the average adult. If we are to justify excluding children, we must have a better reason than ignorance.
Should schools have classes based on the interest of students instead of the usual required classes

I think if students were given the opportunity to choose what kind of classes they want, then they will be better prepared for life after high school. Instead of taking the usual required classes like geometry and biology etc.. Why not take classes that interest the students? Classes that are based on the type of career the student is looking to have. Like for example, if a student wants to be an artist or something related to that then why not have more art classes. I mean of course students will need the basic classes to learn the necessities but more classes should be provided for students to choose from. I think students will do a lot better in schools if this happens because they would be more interested considering its something they like and look forward to later on. Any thoughts?
Soft Drinks are unhealthy and bad for you.

Hello and welcome to this debate. This debate is about soft drinks are unhealthy and bad for you. I shall firstly start. Firstly, soft drinks are bad for you with each sip. The sugar in a normal Coca-Cola can make you vomit if it is eaten itself. Soft-Drinks account for a nearly 13% of total calories. An average American drinks 50 gallons of soft drink a year. Think about the amount of sugar you are drinking. The result is deadly. This leads to diabetes and eventually death. Secondly, Soft drinks also contain 2 toxic substances. Artificial Sweeteners and Brominated Vegetable Oils. They are poisonous drugs and affects the immunity process. If we drink more and more soft-drinks, it can lead to memory loss, coloration and pigmentation on skin, tremors, headache, loss of muscle coordination. Because of this, this poisonous, death-causing drug is banned in India and other countries. But this is still allowed in Canada and America! This is outrageous! Secondly, calcium is important for the maintenance of strong bones. Without calcium, our bones will slowly rot and it can't maintain the sufficcent integrity of teeth, and add that to the sugar and toxic substances, it is clear why dentists and experts are saying that we should not drink soft drinks. I shall rest my case.
Military Conscription is Just

It is my third. Please bear with me, I am still learning the nuances of debate and this website. Glossary Due to terms not being defined in round one, these are up for debate. That stated, I simply found what I think are sufficient definitions. Military: "of or relating to soldiers. " (1) Conscription: "compulsory enrollment of persons for military or naval service; draft. " (2) Just: “guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness:” (3) This effectively makes the resolution “In relation to soldiers, compulsory enrollment of persons through a draft is fair. ” Affirmative Case Due to Justice being referenced in the resolution, it is the core value that should be upheld in this debate. Justice defined simply is giving each their due. The central query of the resolution is whether a military draft is justified. The mechanism by which we can weigh what is just, that is to say how we can determine what is due is by observing contracts. Contracts Contracts are “an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. ”(4) I am sure most everyone is familiar with the concept of a contract. I will use my own experience as an example. I work Monday thru Friday. My employer pays me, I perform labor. We have a contract. If I do not work, he is not obliged to pay me. Likewise, if he does not pay me, I am not obliged to work. The contract we have determines what is due to each of use per our agreement. This is an example of justice. Just like the contract between me and my employer, there is a contract between individuals and society. This is known as the social contract. The Social Contract The core concept of the social contract is simple. Individuals consent to leave the state of nature and join society by entering into a contract with that society. This contract dictates what is due to the individual, and to society. In its most basic form, the individual agrees to obey the law and be subject to a society in exchange for the goods of that society i. e. protection, infrastructure, community etc. Perhaps the best known version today of a social contract is the U. S. Constitution. A social contract creates and defines both a relationship and a contract. Contracts by their very nature are subject to terms and negotiations. The society as a whole and the individuals involved are free to negotiate the contract or refuse to enter the contract. This is only just. As this freedom exists, it is reasonable that a society could determine the possibility of a draft as part of this contract. Conclusion Contracts serve as a reasonable measurement of what is due, and therefore what is just. Societies operate through social contracts between individuals and society. This contract may include conscription. It follows that conscription can then be just. To negate this argument Lannan13 would have to demonstrate contracts themselves unjust. Sources (1) . http://www.dictionary.com... (2) . http://www.dictionary.com... (3) . http://www.dictionary.com... (4) . http://www.dictionary.com...
Democrats are better on social Issues then Republicans

Pro Again! Anyway I do not understand your argument behind the Democrat-Republican name change. Its not the name that makes the party. Its the policies and ideas that make a party. If the Democrats were Republicans back then and the Republicans were Democrats it would be silly for me to defend the party that was basically the republicans. The Democratic party is centered around progressivism and justice. When lyndon B Johnson signed the Civil RIghts act the Dixie Democrats of the South became republicans. And not just any republicans. HARD core republicans. So yes I will base party descions based on the parties ideals not its name. The parties switched whether con likes it or not. Con cannot take credit from what the democrats did in the past. The name changed.... That's it Now onto the subject at hand 1. Military spending. Okay. The Us spends 581.1 Billion dollars every year on the military. And less than 10 percent fights terrorism. 10 percent!!! Also if you cut military spending by 81 percent we would still have the largest military budget in the world. In the US 55 percent of all federal money goes to the military!! We need to cut that amount to at least 35 so we can focus on Americans and not creating power vacuums in the middle east 2 Abortion. Abortion should be legalized to 24 weeks. This is where the fetuses pain congniton in the nervous system kicks in and can actually feel pain. However if you illegalize abortion more loss of life will occur. Women who do not want children will have coat hanger abortions and drink acid mixed with kool aid in back alleys. Women who are so shamed that they got pregnant they will kill themselves. And women who do have children might throw the children in dumpsters or lakes bc they feel they made the wrong descion. Con also brings up rights. Do terrorists have rights or people fighting against the US have rights? You don't think so because bombing and murdering them is against their rights of life and liberty is it not? 3 45,000 americans die every year bc they don't have access to healthcare. This comes from the Senate itself. Free healthcare would prevent that and stop greedy corporations from taking advantage of the system and trying to earn a profit. People just die or get very sick because they don't want to go to the hospital and shower in debt. Also I would like Con to know that just because your a republican and say your a democrat doesn't make you a democrat. And Vice Versa. Names don't matter. Its what they do. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cosmopolitan.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Democrats are better on social Issues then Republicans

I will now rebut Cons Argument Firstly the Parties switched in the 1960's when Lyndon B Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. His own words "The Democrats have lost the south for another 10 generation". This means we must look at the postions of social issues of past presidents/leaders Abraham Lincoln- Wanted slavery to end and for black people to have same rights as whites. At that time that was EXTREMELY liberal and even radical. And while both sides supported segregation the democrats (the back then Northern Republicans) the north relaxed lots of laws and segration was effectively eradicated due to social contructs Also the middle class has been suffering from the economic recession of 2008. Something that many economists have led back to Ronald Reagan and George Bush. 16 million americans have been insured and Obama has added 4.5 million more jobs than bush has ever. 12.8 million jobs in prvate sector. Unemployment is at an all time low as well Also you say that Obama is a bad spender however spending has only increased 1.4 percent above George Bush. And lets see where the spending went. Much of Obama's spending legacy was on the Stimulus Bill and ObamaCare And Bush was on Iraq War. Obama's spending is benefiting americans while Bush spent money that led to the rise of Isis in the middle east Con has also ignored Gay Marriage and Abortion. http://www.thedailybeast.com... I cannot get the citation however if you type In search bar Obama spending vs Bush Spending, its the forbes one
Democrats are better on social Issues then Republicans

Okay now some of the things he said was flaus and a flat out lie. So far he was provided zero logical reasons why democrats on better on social issues. 1. first off republicans where agingest slavery, the one of the reasons the civil war happened was a republican premised came into office who was agingest slavery and southern democrats where agingest it. That president was aberham Lincoln, so are you telling me he was for slavery? 2. Democrats and replicants both supported segregation back then. Though democrats a bit more, it was them who first made the KKK. The states it had the must inflame where the southern democrat states like Georgia Alabama. Yeah back then they where democrat. 3. You claim democrats help the middle class yet under obamas leadership the middle class has fallen. The Economey has fallen under obamas leadership. Taxs are way to high, more companies are now closing rather then entering. Need I say more one this issue. Taxs make it so there is less buying power for those people. So you want to tax the rich more and the middle class. Well that means they have less money now to put back into the ecomney, this is due to a progressive tax. Plus do to the poor getting all this free stuff people have to pay for it so rase the taxs. Aging less buying power for the people. 4. Under obamas leadership the debt just keeps on growing at dangers rates. If we do not start cutting our spending now it will make us go further and further into debt. Until one day it all comes crashing down. Some debt is a good thing, but this is bad debt we should be making more money then we spend and that isn't happening. So this is my round one I will address more issues in the following rounds http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org... http://www.pbs.org... http://www.davemanuel.com...
Democrats are better on social Issues then Republicans

Thank you for Accepting Pro will now argue for Democrats for Social Issues in a constructive response Lets look at the main social issues in this country right now (Or very very important ones in the past) Slavery-Democrats opposed this Segregation- Democrats opposed it Gay Marriage- Democrats supported this Abortion- Democrats overall support the idea of abortion Fixing the Poverty Problem- Democrats shows compassion and actually try to help the poor and don't call them lazy bums Illegal Immigration- Democrats support the notion that any who has the will to come to this nation for prosperity may come which Ronald Reagan supported War- Democrats are mostly anti-war and are opposed to a military presence in the middle east Democrats show a consistent record of helping the middle class and the poor instead of giving tax breaks and calling the poor lazy which many repbulicans refer to the poor
Debate.org profile occupations should include more options such as professional poker player.

I'm not saying that because of me you should add one more, simply that you should allow for ALL careers to be expressed. There are millions of types of careers, why should we only allow for 23 possibilities (one being "other")... This is why I add "such as" to the topic. The main part of the topic is to ADD more careers. I would feel better with my actual career to be up not just other if I'm pro poker player or scientist if I'm a nuclear power plant worker of some sort. We need specifics:)
Debate.org profile occupations should include more options such as professional poker player.

1) Professional poker is not a common career, ergo, whereas some such as PRO might benefit (in the future for PRO), the majority would not, thus, there is no real reason for the webmaster to waste time appealing to PRO since he'd only have to worry about the qualms of the minority. 2) An extra function would be a waste of time as if PRO wanted others to know about his career, he could describe it precisely in his profile (just as anyone can for any career). Ergo, topic negated. Proceed
Debate.org profile occupations should include more options such as professional poker player.

I've been thinking about what I want to do with my life and one of the things that came up is professional poker player. If I DO go into that, how am I going to feel when I have to change my occupation to "other?" I want people to know what I do. I would accept being able to type it in (unlimited "options"), but having only 23 options simply does not suffice. It's not a BIG problem, but something that needs to be pointed out. I am ready for anyone that thinks otherwise.
Debate.org profile occupations should include more options such as professional poker player.

I concur with benefiting the most people, but the status quo does just that. PRO thinks what he is urging is new, but as has been insisted throughout this debate, users already have a means of doing what PRO is talking about and that is posting and explaining their career (to their hearts content rather than being limited to small box as PRO would like) in the "About me" section of their profile. Because of this, changing the occupation section's purpose would be a waste of time. :D
Debate.org profile occupations should include more options such as professional poker player.

Since we want to benefit the most possible people, let me suggest something that supports the resolution. Have your occupation be an open box. This allows anyone to put whatever they want. There is NO way that someone could feel left out because of an open box option, therefore it is the best option. And since the resolution only specifies "more options", it fits perfectly. What could be "more options" than every option? There would therefore be no general BS and everyone could be happy!!!
Debate.org profile occupations should include more options such as professional poker player.

Last sentence in PRO's R3 (excluding "wrong" part) describes my second R2 point precisely. The "occupation" section is not meant to provide others with your EXACT job, but rather, give others a basic idea of it. If a user wants other users to know more about their occupation, then this can easily and clearly be described in one's profile (a point which PRO has addressed at no point in this debate). Minority don't benefit as listing every possible career is nigh-impossible (and a waste of time).
Debate.org profile occupations should include more options such as professional poker player.

If I were a professional poker player, I could be listed under Artist, Self-Employed, Travel, Other, and maybe even retired. None of these things fit it well enough than simply poker player. And what about Artist, that could be a movie director, painter, sculptor, author, etc. Everything can be described as "art". What I'm trying to get at is that these vague terms describe NOT your occupation (as it's listed) but rather your GENERAL field of work which is wrong. Both MIN. and MAJ. benefit.
Debate.org profile occupations should include more options such as professional poker player.

1) My point concerned the staggering minority. The list covers the fields of the majority, thus, a majority gets benefits. Can't please everyone 2) One must note that 23 fields (not jobs) are listed. This proves that the purpose of the list isn't 2 let others know EXACTLY what your job is, thus making the 23/1,000,000 jobs complaint false and irrelevant. 3) My suggestion that PRO could simply describe ANY career he wished to describe in his belief (as the webmaster intended) has been dropp