BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should kids be able to drive at 13 years old

Please i will also indicate that you should take into consideration the reasoning and the arguments of this debate not the morality (after all that is what a debate is). First of all i would like to indicate that a "kid" is an individual until the age of 18. The law allows the minimum age of driving to be between 16-17. These are also seen as teens. You will have to prove to the authorities also your arguments. Nonetheless. .. Here are some facts: (F=fact; D=deducted) F: "33% of deaths among 13 to 19-year-olds in 2010 occurred in motor vehicle crashes" D: The fact does not indicate or mention pre-teens. You would argue, yes they don't because they don't have an driving license. But look at the numbers 13-15 is against the law to drive. Therefore preteens are allowed to drive since the % of deaths or crashes is not indicated. F: "56% of teens said they talk on the phone while driving" D: If you take into consideration a toddler or a individual who has not yet reached the capability to talk then this "fact" will not be applied. F: "Teens may not get behind the wheel and drive intoxicated the way an adult would" D: Self-explanatory F: "Six out of 10 drivers ages 16 to 20 who were killed in crashes were unrestrained" D: A toddler will be restrained in his/her/it's carseat. Therefore this will protect a toddler and will keep him restrained. Now you will argue that preteen does not posses the mental capacity to drive/operate a motorized automobile. Consider this: Driving requires a certain amount of hand-eye coordination, intuition and and a sense of the car's position (spacial geometry). The child is learning/improving his walking abilities which require some hand-eye-foot coordination, if it were to be introduced to a car situation, adaptation will take place. Intuition and mental capacity (i mean the ability to rationalize) is developing at an accelerated speed, the more reason to introduce a child at this age to driving. Bottom line is that all the facts prove that a child/preteen/toddler should be encouraged and allowed to drive. . https://www.sps186.org...
Star Wars Debate: Who is the Better Military Leader

The rules were very clearly spelled out--Con knew exactly what was required of him when he accepted this debate.If he had wanted to do Tarkin, he could've messaged me beforehand asking if that would be okay, he could've started his own debate, or he could've posted a query in the comments. Instead, he chose to blatantly disregard the rules of the debate. That is on him, not on me.You can't willingly agree to something and then complain that it's not what you wanted--Con knew the terms, and he has to live with them.
Star Wars Debate: Who is the Better Military Leader

PrefaceI'm in a nerdy mood--and would like to do a Star Wars debate in tandem with my Star Trek debate. Please have some prior knowledge of the Star Wars films and extended universe if you wish to accept. You must also have at least 3 completed debates to accept this debate, and 2500 ELO to vote on this debate.Full TopicGrand Admiral Thrawn was a better military leader than [insert name here.]TermsBetter - more skillfulMilitary - of or relating to soldiers or the armed forces (such as the army, navy, marines, and air force)Leader - a person who has commanding authority or influence[http://www.merriam-webster.com......]OptionsPro must defend that Grand Admiral Thrawn [http://starwars.wikia.com......] is the better military leader than whomever Con selects.Con must select one of the following 16 individuals and defend that individual as better than Grand Admiral Thrawn: Admiral Gial Ackbar [http://starwars.wikia.com......]General Han Solo [http://starwars.wikia.com......]Admiral Natasi Daala [http://starwars.wikia.com......]General Garm bel Iblis [http://starwars.wikia.com......]Admiral Zsinj [http://starwars.wikia.com......]General Grievous [http://starwars.wikia.com......]General Wedge Antilles [http://starwars.wikia.com......]General Jan Dodonna [http://starwars.wikia.com......]High Admiral Treuten Teradoc [http://starwars.wikia.com......]General Lando Calrissian [http://starwars.wikia.com......]Admiral Gilad Pellaeon [http://starwars.wikia.com......]Warmaster Tsavong Lah [http://starwars.wikia.com......]General Maximilian Veers [http://starwars.wikia.com......]General Crix Madine [http://starwars.wikia.com......]Admiral Nek Bwua'tu [http://starwars.wikia.com......]Emperor Jagged Fel [http://starwars.wikia.com......] Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Wookieepedia shall be considered a valid source, as shall all official Star Warsmovies, TV shows,and other official/cannon publishedmaterial6. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: Acceptance (specify which leader you choose to defend)R2: Constructive CasesR3: Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4: Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5: Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, SummariesThanks......to whomever accepts; I look forward to a nerdgasmic debate!
Abortion Should Be Illegal

You believe it's murder(which I don't argue against of course, to each their own I say) I believe it's a ceasing of a biological process, the end result is that of a life of a human being. Accidents happen; People make mistakes, things can go too far, they can use all the protection possible but one slip up, one miss-thought about the protection and you've suddenly got a pregnancy. How is it right or fair of a nation, body of people to force a woman to go through a biological process causing stress, mental health issues, physical pain and misery (for some, I don't say this for every woman) all because of one mistake. It should be the choice of the woman going through it whether they want to grow it, bare it, then decide to put it up for adoption, keep it or to terminate the process before it goes to far. People should understand the implications and risks of sexual activity, but accidents happen even to the best of us, no life can be ended unless it starts first, sure it's alive in the womb but it's not "a life" till it takes it's first breath of oxygen outside the womb. Why shouldn't a woman be allowed an answer to a mistake. Personally, I don't see it as being a "wrong" as it is just a stopping of something before it gets to far, If a woman gets pregnant from a rape, why should a woman be forced to carry on the offspring of someone that did something terrible to her, what about the mental implications that could cause to the woman or the physical implications that can happen during a pregnancy, it's forcing a person to go though something they may not want. How is it fair to force a woman to go through pregnancy. Now to clarify, I'm no scientist, but I don't consider the fetus a somebody until it is born, but I believe a woman should be allowed the choice to remove something they do not want to go through especially if the process is there and can be done in the best practice possible. A child is an 18 year commitment that some people just aren't ready for when the accident or mistake happens, so I reiterate, why should a woman have to go through the process to leave the child in an adoption centre to become another number in society, it's better to have the choice than not have a choice and be forced to do something you don't want to do.
Abortion Should Be Illegal

I believe that abortion is murder. There are so many reforms we could make to our country that would go beyond outlawing abortion. We could reform our adoption system and make it a safe and comfortable place for children to live in. We can save so many people's lives just by making our adoption system better. To go along with this outlawing of abortion (except in the case of danger to the life of the mother) there would have to be more responsibility among the sexually-active community. People need to understand that becoming sexually active also comes with the risk of pregnancy. No person should have their life ended simply because somebody else made a stupid decision one night. When talking about rape, we have to look at it this way: two wrongs do not make a right. If in the very unfortunate and rare case that a woman who is raped gets pregnant, why does killing somebody make it better? This woman does not have to keep the baby (see the adoption reform area above), but this person should not have their life taken away because somebody else hurt somebody.
Bush is the best president since 1992. Bill Clinton was a failure, and his wife Hillary will be too

Though my opponent has conceded, allow me to reiterate my previous notes, president Bush has been a massive failure, and we are counting the days until he's out of office (372 days, 19 hours). Although, some may object to the personal life of Bill Clinton that isn't part of being president you can't match that up with anything. Bill Clinton got a hummer from a willing adult woman so Bush's massive spending and ballooning of government is acceptable. Bill Clinton lied about sex so Bush's starting an unjustified war on lies and insistence to keep us stuck there until he's out of office costing trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives is acceptable? Honestly, my opponents only argument was that President Clinton didn't do enough on terrorism. When in fact, he did, during the transition his administration emphasized al Qaida and the threat of terrorism. The millennium plot and Bojinka were foiled. He would have gone to war against Afghanistan in February of 2001 after the CIA and FBI agreed on the USS Cole bombing. This besides the fact that terrorism statistics have skyrocketed since the invasion of Iraq. We are getting more terrorism because of Bush, and this foolish actions will be paying dividends in bad results in the lives of our children's children. President Clinton had a 60% approval rating for good reason (even after the hummer). President Bush has a 30% approval rating for a good reason too... he's a bad president.
Bush is the best president since 1992. Bill Clinton was a failure, and his wife Hillary will be too

Clinton is the reason 9/11 happened. If Bush senior and other Republican leaders were in office through-out the 90's we would have had a better grasp on the Radical Islamic movement. Now George W. Bush had to come in and clean up the Clinton Administration's mess that is costing Americans BILLIONS of dollars for the war in Afganistan and Iraq, and we'll probably end up having to blow up Iran too. Yet the Dems want to pull out, but Bush doesn't give in to the stupid strategy the Democrats have, thus keeping America safe and secure and STABLE. The reason another 9/11 hasn't happened again is because the Bush administration has basic common sense, whereas the Democrats, or should I say--the majority of the American public are completely stupid. The war is expensive but it's not like there would be free money and gold flowing in the streets if we pulled out. See the majority of the American public doesn't approve of the war in Iraq, and many people sheepishly go along with that, and most the Democrats feed off that too. What I have learned is the majority of the American public is dumb; if the majority of the American public wanted to jump off a bridge or drink the purple kool-aid, would that be the best thing to do? NO! Exactly, neither is pulling out of Iraq; if we pull out of Iraq, there will be more unstability in the region and Iran would probaly end up going in and invading Iraq, thus making a stronger more dangerous Iran. This is commmon sense people, yet we have professors and politicians and the media(CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Columbia University) wanting to pull out, and blaming America first. All you idiots should move to Canada or something, all it is is treason, and if it weren't for strong leaders like George Bush, we would have had several more 9/11's and our economy and freedom/democracy would be on the brink of extinction. Hillary Clinton, I mean Billary will be no better than her husband and cause the United States to become more unstable, that's why someone who supports the current strategy on the war on terror needs be lead our country for the next four years!
The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy Should Remain Active- Obama will hurt more by banning it

The entire formation of the policy was for the safety of homosexuals, obviously because some heterosexuals were uncomfortable with their presence. Such instances represent the feud: Allen R. Schindler was brutally murdered, to the point that he was barely identifiable. He was an American Radioman Petty Officer in the United States Navy and was only 22 years old. Also, Barry Winchell, an infantry soldier in the United States Army, was murdered in 1999 by soldier, Calvin Glover because he was gay. By banning the policy we are opening the door for potential murder of homosexuals. The policy requires that homosexuals conceal their sexual orientation-homosexuals know the policy when they sign up. They know the consequences. When signing up for the armed forces, one's sexual orientation is never brought up- if a homosexual chooses to reveal their sexual orientation, then that is their decision to subject themselves to discharge. The policy has protected them and created comfort for "homophobic" heterosexuals. Also, there is no reason for them to reveal their sexual orientation; it is against the armed forces regulations that members can even partake in sexual activity soldier with soldier, and since their sexual orientation is not needed, what is the point of revealing it, if it is going to cause discomfort amongst other soldiers? There is no reason. Since the policy has not failed it's duty, there is no reason to demolish it. Even if a homosexual was discharged because of their sexual orientation, it is also because they were committing a sexual act with another homosexual soldier- their business outside of the military is not under military jurisdiction.
The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy Should Remain Active- Obama will hurt more by banning it

My opponent has not refuted my argument about Obama becoming more hurt by banning the DADT policy. My opponent accepts my definition of hurt, and since I was able to prove that Obama will not hurt more by banning the policy, the resolution remains negated. However, I would like to give my stance on the DADT policy. It is unfair to fight discrimination of homosexuals with a discriminatory DADT policy. When in combat or preparing for combat, soldiers are more focused on staying alive and serving a country than on the fact that one of their comrades may be checking them out. Just because homosexuals are not treated equally by some does not constitute a policy that bans essentially most homosexuals from the armed forces. Some people despise black people, Indian people, and Mexican people. Should we ban them from the army too? If they want to help fight, then let it be. How does sexual orientation affect the way someone can trigger a gun or command a troop? It doesn't. There is no constitutional finding that can support the DADT policy. I have negated the resolution in one way or another. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy Should Remain Active- Obama will hurt more by banning it

Your definition of hurt is correct, but your comprehension of the title is incorrect. When I say Obama will hurt more, I do not mean Obama himself will experience an increase in pain; I mean that if he bans the policy he will indirectly open the door to harassment against homosexuals in the army. Thus, the number of homosexuals that will experience pain from harassment and discrimination will increase. The entire reason for the policy was to end the harassment against homosexuals- not to prohibit their equality rights.
The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy Should Remain Active- Obama will hurt more by banning it

As Pro and Instigator, my opponent has the duty of affirming the resolution. Remember, the resolution is, "The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy Should Remain Active- Obama will hurt more by banning it. " My opponent must uphold both cases of the argument. If I am able to refute one of them, the entire resolution shall be negated. All I must do is either prove that the DADT Policy should not remain active or that Obama will not hurt more by banning it. My opponent spends a decent length of her post to describe a brief history of the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy. I accept her information. I shall propose one key definition: hurt- to cause bodily injury to; to cause bodily pain. . http://dictionary.reference.com... Banning the DADT policy will not hurt Obama, because banning a piece of legislation does not cause bodily injury. It causes some people to agree or disagree with the decision, but does not "hurt" the person banning it. I have successfully negated the resolution. Thank you.
The Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy Should Remain Active- Obama will hurt more by banning it

Don't Ask Don't Tell is the military term referring to the policy regarding gays and lesbians. The policy, signed in 1993 by former president Bill Clinton, was implemented as a compromise with legislature which opposed a repeal of the prior ban on gays in the military. According to the Department of Defense the policy states: Established under the premise of privacy, discretion and protection, the policy bans gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people from serving in the military and prevents military officials from asking interrogatory questions or pursuing investigations of soldiers suspected of being homosexuals. Any service member that openly reveals their homosexuality through words or actions is discharged from service. On October 10, 2009, President Barack Obama reaffirmed a promise he claimed during his campaign- to end the ban against gays in the military, thus ending the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy. The policy was made for the protection of gays after a Allen Schindler Jr., U.S. Navy Radioman, was murdered because he was a homosexual. President Obama will be jeopardizing the safety of gays who currently serve and will serve if he ends the policy; much less, if the policy is banned, it has potential to create tension so potent in our armed forces that it would distract our soldiers from being able to efficiently perform their assigned tasks. The policy should not be banned. Hiding ones sexual identity should be a small price to pay if they are truly dedicated to serving their country.
It's time airlines introduced an obeseness class cabin on 'planes.

In response to his "obeseness causes injury" rebuttal I should like to point out that this cannot be measured by lawsuits. After Virgin was successfully sued for allowing an obese to crush one of their passengers other airlines are likely to have settled such cases out of court in order to avoid the negative publicity but, the fact remains, that with 63% of Americans obese or overweight, people flying in the US have a better-than-even chance of being seated next to somebody whose body mass is going to encroach on their personal space, potentially injuring them in the process. . http://www.webmd.com... Furthermore, the obese have got the airlines on the back foot and, being greedy by nature, have taken to suing airlines such as Southwest, who require people who need two seats to actually pay for two seats rather than expect their fellow passengers to donate part of their own seats to them. . http://abcnews.go.com... Making the user pay is morally sound in a commercial context: why should normal passengers subside the obese? They should either pay for two seats, or otherwise, purchase outsize seats in obeseness class which has been specially designed to cater for grossly overweight passengers. Planes do not need to be bigger to accommodate the obese, by the way, they just need to be reconfigured. The planes will carry the same amount of passengers but both normal people and the obese will be able to travel in comfort - everybody's a winner! Regarding discrimination, it's not something about the face of an obese that tells you he's a "lazy bum", it's something about his huge belly! Remember, obesity is preventable, it's a lifestyle choice: people who are not greedy and lazy do not consume more calories than they burn off and, therefore, they do not become obese. That's also why you can't discriminate against the obese like you can women or black people: gender and ethnicity are both beyond an individual's control, becoming obese is not. In conclusion, an obeseness class cabin offers grossly overweight passengers an attractive option to either buying two seats or being resented by normal passengers in economy (coach) class and would deliver brand loyalty, an by extension, increased profits to any airline that introduced it. Thank you.
It's time airlines introduced an obeseness class cabin on 'planes.

Thank you for this interesting and thought provoking debate. Obeseness can cause injury: rebuttal You linked to one article where this is the case. There are tons of obese people in America, and I'm betting most of them have been able to sit in an airplane seat without crushing the person next to them. If you show that this has a history of happening, we'll talk, if not all you got is 1 case out of 1.4 billion potential cases. "Of course, tickets in obeseness class would cost a little more than economy class tickets because the seats would occupy a larger footprint on the plane," No kidding! Although you are not being squished by them, a new section will still take away space from you. Why? It's not like they are going to start designing bigger planes for the occasion. What would you rather chose: a chance of sitting next to an obese person and being mildly uncomfortable, or sitting in a just as uncomfortable seat squished close to the other one because the obese section of the plane is making coach smaller and smaller? Or worse yet: not being able to ride on a plane because the coach has less seats to be sold? Discrimination factor Despite anyone's response, it is not only the physical uncomfort that makes people not to sit with fat people, its that "labeler" in your mind that tells you that you are not racist, or sexist, or fatist but that dude of there, he's annoying. He hasn't said anything but everything on his face tells me that he is a lazy bum. This has nothing to do with the fact that he is gay or overweight of course. But theres just something about him. Adding a whole new section to planes would not help the fact that this society is only starting to take the steps towards true equality. Conclusion Adding an obese section on a plane is not only inefficient, but could be mentally demeaning to obese people despite the few pros.