BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The legal drinking age should be lowered to 16.

That is a very good point. But I believe that if a 16 year old can physically go out and get a job, legally drive, and be treated as an adult then they should be allowed to drink. If I was a 16 year old guy and I just got home from a long day at school and then work and I wanted a cold Bud Light why shouldn't I be enabled to the right? "Dwight B. Heath knows what he is about to say will sound a little crazy to most people. When asked what the minimum legal drinking age should be in the U.S., Heath says 8, or maybe even 6. No, the Brown University anthropology professor is not advocating getting kids drunk. Instead he favors a cultural model, common in countries like France or Italy, where parents serve small amounts of wine to their children at family meals. By doing this, he says, parents educate their kids about alcohol and rob drinking of its taboo allure, which can make rebellious teenagers sneak off to basements and backwoods to binge drink far from adult supervision." (http://www.cnn.com...) Many countries, such as Belgium, Denmark, and Germany, allow 16 year old teens to buy alcoholic beverages. If the United States were to lower their drinking age to 16 it would cut binge drinking drastically. In about 30 states in the U.S. under aged drinking is allowed if the teens are with their guardians. So over half of the states are allowing under aged drinking, but it's not legal through out the whole country.
The legal drinking age should be lowered to 16.

Yes, you are correct. I will not even try to deny that. Most teens these days, from what I see on a daily basis, are not yet mature enough enough to be able to drink at such an age. Yes you are correct, a lot of 16 year old teens drink on a daily basis. But most teens are still growing, and their bodies are still going through changes. Alcohol effects while the body is still growing can be dangerous. Most teens at that age are still growing. "Adolescence is a time of rapid physical development, and a lot of growing teens feel ambivalent about these changes. Facial hair, vocal changes and signs of sexual maturity can be both exciting and embarrassing. But teenagers may not realize that alcohol can interfere with this important process, causing delays in sexual development. Frequent drinking can also cause weight gain, which may put you at risk for developing high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes. Teenagers who keep drinking into adulthood have a higher risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver when they"re older. The liver is one of the most important organs in your body, helping you metabolize nutrients and rid your system of harmful toxins. Because your liver also metabolizes alcohol, excessive drinking can put a tremendous strain on this vital organ, eventually leading to illness and death." (newportacademy.com) At the age of 16, I believe it is not the time for a teen to be actively drinking legally.
The legal drinking age should be lowered to 16.

That was a very valid point. "I am not saying that all teens would drink and drive, but you better believe that some will." I agree with that. But most teens who are driving are already drinking, whether they're 15 or 18. In most small towns, everyone is drinking. I'm from a small town, am still in high school, and I drink on occasionally. Yes some teens don't know when to stop and drinking too much can lead to death. Many kids drink. "In 2009, 10.4 million young people ages 12"20 reported that they drank alcohol beyond "just a few sips" in the past month." Yes I agree too much alcohol can shut your body down and kill you. "Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 " 2010." But many 16 year old teens are drinking almost on a daily basis. Most body's will force the person to stop drinking, as they'll pass out or start puking.
The legal drinking age should be lowered to 16.

I agree that the drinking age should be lowered, however, not to the age of 16. I will argue with what I see everyday at school. Many of my fellow schoolmates are not mature enough to drink responsibly. Yes, regardless what the age requirement is there will be teens that drink. Let's take a serious issue hand in hand with this. Drinking and Driving, and Car Accidents that mainly teens are in. I am not saying that all teens would drink and drive, but you better believe that some will. Another thing that I've seen is that many students, which I am in high school so 15-16 is my age group, don't know restraint. They don't know when to stop. Alcohol can be very deadly if you continue to drink. Teens these days think drinking is "cool" and that smoking is "cool." You have some that will not stop since they don't know restraint. I do agree with you that it should be lowered, I will state that again; however, I think it should be to the age of 18. A
The United States government commits acts of terrorism

A lot of people believe that the United States is a sponsor or itself perpetrates terrorism. They cite various actions or atrocities carried out by the United States military, the CIA, or allied entities. I do not believe the United States can be characterized as a terrorist state. This topic is potentially very sticky, since people hold ambiguous definitions and feelings about terrorism. I stand by the definition that terrorism is a violent act intentionally inflicted against innocent civilians for the purpose of swaying a third party, usually a government, to change its behavior. The use of violence in itself doesn't define terrorism, nor do the goals of the assailant matter. The actions of the target government that might inspire a terrorist act aren't a concern either. The key point to defining terrorism is that violence is used against innocents in order to sway the actions of a third, responsible party. This is particularly onerous to those who want to live by the rule of law because it places authorities in an unpleasant dilemma: they either submit to demands and thereby validate the use of illegal force to achieve change, or allow for the loss of innocent life to preserve the integrity of the rule of law. The United States has not intentionally or consistently employed the coercive actions of terrorism to achieve its goals. It has used military force and the threat of force against other states, but only in a lawful framework. It is not acceptable to conflate war with terrorism, especially considering the above definition. With respect to individuals or people groups, the United States has made mistakes in its history, such as condoning slavery and failing to uphold treaties with Native Americans, but these were simply by definition not acts of terrorism. In war, atrocities have been committed and collateral casualties have been incurred, but neither of these were intentionally or coherently inflicted as a matter of policy. Furthermore, as unfortunate as these acts were, they weren't terrorism. Terrorism only occurs when a threat or attack is aimed specifically against civilians in order to sway the target government's actions. The Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 was terrorism because the perpetrators wanted the U.S. federal government to cease what they considered tyranny. Another clear-cut example is the July 2005 London bombings, because Al Qaeda affiliates wanted Britain to withdraw from Iraq. Many actions are onerous. Some are just unpleasant, and people can rightfully disagree as to their moral legitimacy. Not all these things are terrorism, however. People are rightfully frustrated by the excessive use of the term, but the specific meaning of terrorism is important to understand and maintain, and it must not be lost.
Being a child is better than being an adult

Many adults find that when they were a child, they would often want to become an adult. But once he or she has become an adult, they would wish that they were still children. As children, all they need to do is study and play, and if our character is bad, it still means that there is jealousy and hatred. As for children, they can continue to work hard instead of being jealous. Children can rely on their parents therefore being safe from the all the danger. As children, we can learn with enthusiasm and to pay attention. If a child gets bad results, the answer to that is most likely because he or she did not pay attention while the teacher was teaching. If a child gets bad results, all they have to do is to study hard for the next examination. If an adult does a wrong report, the boss may be mean enough to sack him or her or leave a black mark under his or her name
Being a child is better than being an adult

No! The adult life may not be like that! You can still make friends and live life, right? And children may also have family problems and maybe the child cannot seem to be able to make friends. The adult life may not be filled with jealousy, or hatred! It all happens because our character is bad, that we have these problems. In children life, that may happen too! In exams, the child may get competitive and compare marks too often. If someone consequently gets a higher mark then the child, then the child may get jealous too! It's not just adults. And even if you make a teeny mistake, you can correct it and move on again! It's not the end of the world if you make a small mistake in adult life.
Being a child is better than being an adult

I understand what you are getting to. But are you sure that everyone can overcome stress? If an adult cannot find a job at all, he might even become bankrupt. Childhood days means that you can play, study, and make friends. In the adult world it is all about hatred, jealousy and despising. The adult world is complicated, full of traps. Make one mistake, you may have a miserable life ahead.
Being a child is better than being an adult

I understand. I know the adult has to depend on himself/herself, but they can take the chance to learn how to do things. Being a child, we depend on our parents for everything: Money, food, shelter... Being an adult, we can learn much more things! And I know we may encounter some nasty people in our lives, and our boss may not be good and make adults stressed, but still, adults can work hard to overcome the stress that they have and then they can have a good life!
The UK should raise more in tax revenue by slashing taxation on business

1) Decreasing tax rates does not necessarily mean more total tax will be collected (even if there is increased economic activity) To illustrate this point, imagine that taxes on income both personal and corporate and sales tax were reduced to 1 percent. Even if this resulted increased economic activity the net over all tax revenue would be lower. 2) All regulations are a compliance cost to a business or persons they directly apply too, but regulations can increase overall economic activity Consider for example food regulations, to comply with these food regulations obviously will incur a cost. But there can be an overall increase in economic activity because of the regulations. How much of a wealth generating economy do you think you will have with a sizable chunk of your work force with constant diarrhea. 3) Better ways for a government to increase revenue and/or pay off debt - Tougher tax compliance, eg no allowing for income to be filtered in various ways to avoid tax Example trusts, tax safe havens, tax law loop holes. - Increase tax on "passive" income/rent seekers "Rent-seeking generally implies the extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity, such as by gaining control of land and other pre-existing natural resources, or by imposing burdensome regulations or other government decisions that may affect consumers or businesses. " [1] I look forward to Pros response. Sources . http://en.wikipedia.org...
iPhones are good phones

Alright final round. I will conclude with the following. Pro, you have not been able to fully rebut my arguments, other than providing some smiles. [I'll give you one also at the end :)] The debate was revolved around whether or not iPhones are good phones. I have given reasons as to why iPhones are just like any other phone out there, the only difference being price and operating system "name". In essence they all do the same thing and at no point does one overtake the other in quality. These are all branded items meant mostly for entertainment. Since it is as such, there will always be different perspectives since everyone can be said to be "entertained" differently. I suppose the votes will show who had better conduct and evidences. Good luck and thank you for the debate. PS. I apologize for the spelling mistakes, hope they didn't confuse you too much.
iPhones are good phones

I forgot to mention this earlier but two companies make the whole phone, for example Samsung provides the phone and Android makes the OS. This makes it easier for Samsung to just focus on the phone and Google just to focus on the OS giving it an unfair advantage. (you said announded, the "correct term" is announced.) 1. I'll list the ways it redefined the smartphone -could be used as a music player -It had no buttons -you didn't use a stylus (was popular at the time) -it had better stores for a better experience buying one (android stores???) -It was much faster than phones at the time -Oh and the Play Store has ads now (http://techcrunch.com...) I'll pay for apps over having ads. 2. I guess you have nothing to say about the Android users switching over. And I just want to end the money argument now because Apple is the biggest company in the world. "A item that is newly introduced into the market place, with the correct amount of marketing and vogue distribution, the produce will be successful. This type of behavior has been tested and researched into. [3] Due to Apple products receiving a periodic update (usually in their appearance) of the geometry of the device,minimal internal improvements (I am aware of the iOs8 changes which should have been corrected long time ago), the individual will want something that looks new." What does this have to do with my second argument? And what you said about how iOS 8 isn't everything people wanted, at least people can upgrade the software of the phone they just bought. (Don't say we should be disappointed when many Android users can't even upgrade.) 3. Again, nothing to do with what I said.... (the "correct term" is overtaken not oertaken) I guess point 7. is your response. The S6 came out in April, which is 8 months. That's a lot of time." 2 weeks before your released your product it does not mean you copied." But that's none of my business... :) And what you said about how iOS 8 isn't everything people wanted, at least people can upgrade the software of the phone they just bought. 4. It's hilarious how many ways i can rebuke this so I'll make a list - that stat is from 2012 :) -they make more types of phones and they make those cheap ones you find in the grocery store, so people who can't afford iPhones there only option is Android. :) -with a two year contract that price drops to $199 for iPhone 6 and $299 for the 6+ (why would you buy a phone that can't even make calls?) :) -Apple is also newer to the scene of phones, only having made smartphones :) 5. they are both terrible so don't act like Android is perfect ( just repeating this to show Samsung is bad too,"100 hours of forced overtime work per month, unpaid work, standing for 11 to 12 hours while working, underage workers, severe age and gender discrimination, abuse of student and labor dispatch workers, a lack of worker safety, and verbal and physical abuse.") Also I haven't heard about people getting cancer from iPhone factories. 6. you concede :) 7. The only thing that isn't true for is the G4, the rest came out months later giving them more time to work on it and see what Apple did. :) Your turn!1!!!111!!1!!!1!1
iPhones are good phones

You missed my point Pro. What i meant by the snake game is that all of the features that are now in the phones where in the old ones also to some extend. Due to technology advancements, the phones were upgraded to smartphones being able to process more data and have access to internet as well as other options. But in essence it has the same roots. All phones are at the core the same. 2. You used a fact that was not accurate then you say "still"? Make sure you formulate your debate on true facts, or if you do not wish to at least use intuition. Do not add a quote and say it took it from here where in fact the information on that website is not correct. 3. As i said in the previous round. It takes time to develop a new "design". If they match that does not mean that they copied from each other since the steps necessary to reaching the final product, in this case the watch, it will take more than a few weeks or days. When other people tell you that apple stole the design from Samsung just mention that is not possible. Give them the reason above as to why. 4. Here is the proof that android is more versatile than Apple: [1] [2] With the Android the user has more capabilities at managing his/her apps which apple lacks. Android is run on over 84% of the smartphones world wide, whereas Apple is only 12%. So you can see that the history is on the Android side. [1] The difference between iOs 8 and 7 are almost non-existant, whereas the new lolipop update, Andrioid will be incorporating all of the bugs that were found in the previous builds into a new update, which i find it very good. Another thing i will add is that during upgrades from X to X.1 (ie. iOs 7 to 8) apple requires an extended (sometimes 20gb) of memory whereas to android is very minimal. 5. Just to summarize, and i hope this will give you insight into how the Apple is being created/manufactured, which is based on child/young labour. As you might be aware [3] [4] of the below human conditions that people are being treated in these manufacturing plants, as well as their denial of human rights (some factories have suicide nets to prevent people from jumping) further promote a culture of self-interest of the creators and senior managements and presides of the Apple corporation. So when you say iPhones are good phones, go to china and ask a child that works as a slave what he/she thinks of it. :) Your turn :) [1] http://tech.firstpost.com... [2] http://www.greenbot.com... [3] http://www.macworld.com... [4] http://www.cnet.com...
iPhones are good phones

1. When I said they reinvented the phone I meant the smart phone. At the time the BlackBerry was just used by people in business adding these features made getting a smart phone more common and more likable by people who were either younger or people who weren't in business. The iPhone also had more options then just Snake. 2. Still even if the iPhone isn't outselling them all together they still outsell them alone. Also the fact that one phone was outselling all of these large phone companies at once is impressive as well. 3. I am used to people saying "oh Apple made a smart watch what a copy of the Samsung watch. " So I would just like to point out that Samsung isn't perfect either and they aren't completely original. Plus Apple also has a completely unique OS. 4. You didn't rebuke the fact that Android has a better market for having features that the iPhone has. Because they make many more phones than Apple makes it easier to find a phone with something that iPhones don't have. When I just listed those phones I was trying to make a point that many Android phones aren't waterproof and don't have removable batteries. 5. Androids are more buggy than iPhones. According to this cite (. http://www.imore.com...) Apple has a higher priority for UI rendering which means that iPhones are less prone to lagging and the touch screen is more responsive compared to Androids. Even IOS 5 can run smoother than more recent Andriod OSs.
iPhones are good phones

Accepted this debate because i see a lot of flaws. Here we go :) "1. They reinvented the smartphone so that it could be used for fun and not just business" I have one picture for you, go here (http://cdn.macrumors.com...) and this should cover your statement above (if it does not then i won't mind explaining) "2. iPhones are outselling android. This one phone company is outselling, Motorola, Samsung, and LG combined" I think you missed out on the title of the webpage. Here i pasted it for you "apples-iphone-overtakes-android-in-us-sales-for-the-first-time-since-2012". Another thing to indicate is that the rise was due to iPhone 6 was released, resulting in that spike in sales. These have leveled now however. 3. Although i do agree that they look similar on the outside, they have however different operating systems. Just because geometrically it made sense to create them (perhaps the way the internal board is being created it matches eachother) it does not mean that Galaxy was copied from the iPhone. This development might have taken months perhaps even years. They cannot go and reinvent their size just because the competitor has a device that looks the same. These are company secrets and standards that cannot be copied.. 4. Well those are just the ones that aren't "water proof" (although that is not even a correct term). Here are some that are [1]: Galaxy S4/S5 Galaxy Xcover3 Sony's Xperia Z3 So don't pick the ones that don't have and compare with the i platform from which none have... [1] http://www.digitaltrends.com...
iPhones are good phones

I believe that iPhones are one of the best phones out there. 1. They reinvented the smartphone so that it could be used for fun and not just business http://www.eweek.com... 2. iPhones are outselling android. This one phone company is outselling, Motorola, Samsung, and LG combined. http://techcrunch.com... 3. People say they aren't "original," can we please look at the iPhone 6 and Galaxy s6? They look extremely similar and the iPhone came out earlier too. Just look at the bottoms and they look almost the same. Also they copied the color scheme that most apple products use of gold, silver, and dark grey options. 4. The argument before was "iPhone isn't water proof, it doesn't have a removable battery." Does the s6 have these features? Does the Droid Turbo? Does the Moto x? No none of these do. Plus the fact that there are so many Android phones gives them the option of many different phones having different features, giving them an unfair advantage.