BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dating at a young age prepares you for adulthood

I think I understand kinda what you are getting at but dating at a young age is wrong. Since you didn't specify definitions, I'm going to go ahead and specify young age as including middle school and below but not high school or anything above. When you are at such a young age, dating makes no sense. The human brain at that age is to young to fully process exactly what is occurring. I would also like to specify the definition of dating as: "Dating is a form of courtship consisting of social activities done by two people with the aim of each assessing the other's suitability as a partner in an intimate relationship or as a spouse." At such a young age, kids don't know what they want in a future spouse and they are really to young to start figuring it out. I agree that when you develop knowledge on relationships you will realize that there are more fish in the sea but we are referring to dating, which is not the same as a relationship: "The way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected." All people dating are in a relationships but not all relationships are classified as dating. "One recent study from the University of Georgia evaluated the dating habits of 624 students in grades 6 through 12 from six Georgia school districts over a seven-year period. Students who reported dating since middle school demonstrated the poorest study skills in the group and were four times more likely to drop out of high school." Now, I understand that this was more of an isolated study but this is a generality. While the same may not be said for all middle schoolers, on average that is generally what will happen. Especially when you ignore the fact that almost all middle schoolers don't truly understand what dating means. The source below does offer some ways to help prevent that but the truth is, how many parents will truly take the time to sit down and ask their 12 year old to write what they want in a future spouse and how DATING should be. Now, for a parent to talk about relationships is one thing but about truly dating, it rarely happens at that age. I excluded high school as by the time high school is reached, relationships are bound to happen however most highschoolers are considered young adults (as they are expected to act that way although they rarely do) and that is why I excluded them. I acknowledge that you can't go out into the world and think it's all going to be okay however dating at a young age will almost always do exactly the opposite and actually worsen your future instead of benefit it. Source: http://www.schoolfamily.com...
Dating at a young age prepares you for adulthood

Dating in Middle, High and even Fith grade can help you with your future in relathonships throughout the future. Your first heartbreak can't wait when your twenty years old at a bar, when all your friends are looking straight at you. You got to build from your peers. A Teenage relationshiop won't last forever but does improve your skills for your young adult years. When you are in middle or high school you will think when someone doesn't like you anymore its the end of the world, but when you developed more knowlage on relationshiops you will understand that there is more fish in the sea. I bet if you ask every guy out there about what they say if a girl regects the date, they will all say it hurts but it got to be done if you want something. You can't go out into the world and thing its all going to be okay, you got to prepare and do it young so you can understand the feeling of rejection.
Crimea's Vote to Join Russia is Not Legitimate

"1. Crimea is an autonomous region of Ukraine .for your information 58% of whole crimea is erhnic russians them why once Yatsenyuk took over because one of his first orders of business was to remove Russia as the second official language in Ukraine.In the Crimean peninsula, more than half of the population is of Russian descent and the majority there speak Russian as their first language. It was clear whose side they would chose in this fight. So the thinking of ukraine to cover crimea is just a game of politics with joining NATO." Just because the majority of the people speak Russian there, it doesn't make Crimera's vote legitimate. Also Crimea is not leaving Ukraine legally, because Crimea is part of Ukraine, if it wants to leave it has to do so by how the Ukraine constitution states it should be done. Crimea did not follow the procedure making the vote illegitimate. "2. On the voting day on the ballot two questions were asked in russian ukrainaian and tatar languages a) to secede from ukraine and request annexation by russia b) to remain part of ukraine with expanded autonomy" This is not rue, if you read my argument you would have not said this, there is no official no on the ballet. Also your source is not a legitimate one. When I opened it up there was a numerous amount of mistakes. Fore example, the languages the have Indian as one, this is not a language, the indain language is Hindi. Also this source says there are human animal hybrids, google maps found an alien on the moon, and that people are dropping toxic mice of Guam to kill. This makes me doubt the source's accuracy.
Crimea's Vote to Join Russia is Not Legitimate

first i want to look into the background of this Crimea .....Crimea became the part of Ukraine on the basis of referendum then why it can't be the part of Russia on the basis of referendum i'm putting my opinions ..... 1. Crimea is an autonomous region of Ukraine .for your information 58% of whole crimea is erhnic russians them why once Yatsenyuk took over because one of his first orders of business was to remove Russia as the second official language in Ukraine.In the Crimean peninsula, more than half of the population is of Russian descent and the majority there speak Russian as their first language. It was clear whose side they would chose in this fight. So the thinking of ukraine to cover crimea is just a game of politics with joining NATO. 2. On the voting day on the ballot two questions were asked in russian ukrainaian and tatar languages a) to secede from ukraine and request annexation by russia b) to remain part of ukraine with expanded autonomy President Vladimir Putin has cited Kosovo as on example where a break-away region of Yugoslavia was able to secede. Washington and Brussels had no problem with that. Kosovo is now protected by NATO. Ukraine joining NATO would ultimately reignite feelings from the Cold War and rewind the clock to 1984 on Russian-U.S. and Russian-European relations. Washington has been the most boisterous of the NATO allies. John Kerry has threatened targeted economic sanctions and visa bans against Russian officials deemed responsible for violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine if Crimea secedes. it shows the jealous nature of america on russia as we know from cold war 3.Crimea doesn't need independence, must be part of Russia - Crimean PM Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com... No, we will not have independence. We currently believe, I personally think that Crimea should join Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation," he said. Turnout can't affect referendum legitimacy - Crimean authorities Crimea ready to resist provocations on referendum day - Crimean PM Russian troops in Crimea not involved in 'active measures' - PM Aksyonov Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com... is all these are false? these are the rumours spread be western countries that it is illigitimate and illegal they don't like to see russia a wealthy country whatever be the crimeas problem their main target is russia they are not trying to solve the problems they are just reigniting the feeling of cold war
Crimea's Vote to Join Russia is Not Legitimate

Crimea's vote is not legitimate because it was heavily influenced by Russia. This would produce biased results. If you had Russian troops patrolling in your neighborhood, you wouldn't want to get in their way. This could have influenced many voters making the vote illegitimate. Many voters were afraid to speak in front of a camera. The vote was issued by the government in Crimea, this makes the vote illegitimate because the government can easily change the result of the vote. Also the was no official no to Russian control of Crimea. The two options are joining Russia and restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine. At first it looks like residents have an option, but this means that Crimea's old form of government to be restored, which give Crimea the abilities of an independent state and with the government there saying they will give Crimea to Russia any way, the voter don't have an option whether Crimea will join Russia. It either that Crimea will take the long route of simply join. There is no option of Crimea being a part of Ukraine. Also the vote violated the Ukrainian constitution, therefore Crimea is not leaving Ukraine legally. Also no country except Russia recognizes the vote as valid. Sources: . http://edition.cnn.com... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://www.usnews.com... . http://www.bbc.com...
music during school

Your anecdote is touching, but sob stories don't win debates. It is too bad that your pal was subjected to such a horrific life, but you cannot blame her misfortune entirely on her inability to listen to music in class. Instead of blaming completely legitimate school policies, you could perhaps blame the person who raped and drugged her. Doesn't that make more sense? It wouldn't relate to your argument, though. What you claim is only one example of somebody who could not listen to music during class, there are many more people who I'm sure are perfectly OK with being deprived of music for a few hours. You could also blame her crippling depression on the way she "refused pills". See, that's why she was depressed, right there. She wouldn't take any anti depression pills even if they were prescribed to her. It's like a cancer patient refusing chemotherapy because they like their hair better than their lives. Anti depressant pills work much better than just playing some music. They contain chemicals in them which make the brain less depressed. And the best part is that, unlike music, they're fine in school. The restriction placed upon listening to music, I find, is perfectly reasonable. It reduces distraction and keeps students focused on what the teacher is saying. Oftentimes, during a long period of work, a teacher might say you can listen to music, but you have to jump at those opportunities. Different schools have different policies and some are more harsh than others. I, personally, see the use of music during class as a form of discrimination. I don't own a phone, so I couldn't even listen to music if I wanted to.
music during school

Students should be able to overcome their ADHD and anxiety in order to learn better. As of today, there are many medications and treatments on the market which, when taken, can improve attention spans and make learning much easier. Some students are prone to use ADHD as an excuse, whether they really have it or not. Instrumental music might soothe the ear a bit, but music with lyrics tends to confuse the listener between the words he's hearing and the words he's looking at. Certain music might cause the user to think more about the nice music than the calculus he's trying to grasp. Tuning out is not a good thing. If, for instance, a student listens to loud, obnoxious rock music, he could miss an important instruction from the teacher because he's too busy on his worksheet. Awareness is key to succeeding in school, and music makes people far less aware of what they're doing.
Homosexual life stile is not natural.

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them. A German zoo was planning to introduce male penguins into a group of female penguins because the female penguins seem to be attracted to one another. Homosexual rights groups are angry with the plan because they believe the zoo's actions are trying to turn the penguins straight. Here's the premise: Whatever animals do in nature is natural. What's natural is normal. What's normal is moral. So if penguins engage in homosexual behavior, then that behavior must be natural, normal, and moral. If we are truly the products of evolution, then there can be no moral judgments about anything. So then, if the homosexuals want to use penguins as their moral model, then they need to take all animal behavior into consideration when they build their moral worldview. If we should follow the animal world regarding homosexual penguins and thereby regard human homosexual behavior as normal, then we must be consistent and follow the animal world regarding rape and eating our young and decriminalize these behaviors as well. Note that I have all ready stated that is only in the wild that we can find the true nature of things. Truly we do have have a difference of opinion on what words like nature and natural means. I am not debating that a person does not have the right to choose that life style or any religious aspects of it. I believe in free will. Only that it is abnormal and not the norm in nature. I am not trying to debate the philosophical aspect of it. I think I have made my point in this debate that Homosexual is not the norm in nature.
Homosexual life stile is not natural.

You are right it should be normal and abnormal in defining a Homosexual lifestyle as nature teaches us. There is only 1 mammal among millions that will have sex with its own sex because it can not control itself in time of heat. I have to conclude that homosexuality is abnormal or not the norm in nature. The study of nature includes the sex life of animals so it does apply to the topic. My arguments are my beliefs and I have had many homosexual friends I have seen how they became homosexuals and then renationalized that they were born that way. They can live their lifestyle and I will live mine but I will not lie to myself and say its a normal natural lifestyle and you have not shown that it is.
Homosexual life stile is not natural.

Note: I'm not treating this debate as to persuade you to believe that the CON is correct, I'm merely required to defeat your arguments and present mine adequately. Topic: Homosexual life stile (style? spelling?) is not natural. Definitions: Natural: in accordance with nature Unnatural: not in accordance with nature Homosexual lifestyle: homosexuality Observation: Natural should not be defined as the majority occurrence, opinion, or belief. So long as "Homosexual lifestyle", or "homosexuality", as I will refer to it as, is proven as natural, then the CON wins. Burden of proof is on the PRO. If I am able to successfully defeat all of your arguments and one of mine stands, then I win the debate. Case (very short): Homosexuality is natural. Simple analogy to save explanations: mental retardation. It is not popular, common, nor even condoned by all. However, it occurs in nature, thus it is natural. Homosexuality occurs in nature. You agree: "Homosexual behavior is very very rare in nature." You concede that homosexuality occurs in nature. By my definition presented, I conclude that because homosexuality occurs in nature it is natural. Refutations: "The study of nature clearly shows that the reason for sex is to reproduce the species." The study of SEXUALITY, not nature. Different forms of sexuality, however, do occur in nature, also known as homosexuality. The purpose of sexuality is to reproduce, however it occurs in the course of nature that sexuality may not always fulfill its purpose. So you have proven that homosexuality works against the purpose of sexuality, but not that it is unnatural. "Homosexual behavior is very very rare in nature" Not "very very rare" but I will agree with you that it does occur. "so it's not the norm in fact It's abnormal." Great observation, but it doesn't apply to the topic. "Also male and female sex organs match up or go to gather ,Male and male do not, nor do female and female ,nor can they repoduce naturaly." Sword fighting and scissoring, once again, great observation, but it doesn't apply to the topic. "If you put 100 homosexuals on a island for 150 years with everything they needed to live , when you came back there would be no homosexuals alive.This would hold true for Lesbians too." Once again, great observation. But it would be natural for them to live on the island, natural for them to hold those beliefs, and natural for them to stick to them and die as they were born homosexual and that is their form determined by nature. Your arguments are feuds against homosexual behavior. You have only proven your (potential) homophobia and little else.
Homosexual life stile is not natural.

The study of nature clearly shows that the reason for sex is to reproduce the species. Homosexual behavior is very very rare in nature ,so it's not the norm in fact It's abnormal. Also male and female sex organs match up or go to gather ,Male and male do not, nor do female and female ,nor can they repoduce naturaly. If you put 100 homosexuals on a island for 150 years with everything they needed to live , when you came back there would be no homosexuals alive.This would hold true for Lesbians too. So I have to conclude that it's against Nature to be homosexual or a lesbian .It's a perversion of the natural act of reproduction.
Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanism does not exist.

The Church of Satan was started by Anton Szandor LaVey in 1966. Then, with all his combined writings of the time, he wrote the Satanic Bible, codifying Satanism into an Atheist "unreligion", not a group of devil worshippers/blood drinkers. Before then, nobody had the guts to stand up to the Christian movement as much as he did. Nobody stood up to the Christian, Islam, and Jewish Fundamentalists. Soon enough, there were many other groups who were either: A) Former CoS members whom had left the CoS to create there own so-called "Satanic" group B) People who had seen LaVey set a new standard to freedom of speech, and decided to do the same, but in a different group or C) Misinterpreted LaVey as a devil worshipper and started worshipping Satan This debate will mainly focus on option C. Devil Worshippers (called usually Theistic or Spiritual Satanists by the masses who do not know what true Satanism is all about), polytheistic Set/Loki/Satan/Lucifer worshippers, and other opposite-God worshipping groups came into existence (through superstition and belief that LaVey was a devil worshipper). Although these people claim to be groups of men and women that worship Satan, they have no rules, laws, Bible, or even leader for that matter. That is why I want to settle this once and for all. Codified Theistic and Spiritual Satanism does not exist. For the record, I am what you would call a LaVeyan Satanist (a true Satanist).
Trigger warning: Rape, torture, children in provocative positions, WMD's, Justin Bieber, balls

The problem with trigger warnings in general is that they help trauma survivors avoid situations, words or images that remind them of the traumatic event. This avoidance leads to feelings of helplessness and eventually depression. According to Professor Metin Basoglu, a psychologist, "The media should actually " quite the contrary" Instead of encouraging a culture of avoidance, they should be encouraging exposure. Most trauma survivors avoid situations that remind them of the experience. Avoidance means helplessness and helplessness means depression. That"s not good". http://www.telegraph.co.uk... What they do is basically reinforce PTSD. According to Richard J. McNally, a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, "Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder." What we're doing is making things worse for victims of rape, torture, child molestation and Justin Bieber. Instead of making things worse for survivors of trauma we should make things better just by exposing them to these things without any sort of warning. On top of the ways it harms victims of traumatic experiences it has other harms as well. A lot of people treat language as this really powerful thing. They'll apply trigger labels to things or label some form of language that Is common practice as ableism or misogynistic or racist somehow. The effects of this (and I believe intent of a lot of it), is that it shuts down discourse. It hurts communication. How can we seriously discuss an issue if half the audience has to remove themselves from the room because I need to bring up something that may remind them of a trigger warning.
Trigger warning: Rape, torture, children in provocative positions, WMD's, Justin Bieber, balls

Full resolution: There should be a trigger warning on debates that graphically depict rape, torture or other things likely to trigger symptoms of PTSD. Definitions Trigger warning: "In some publications a "trigger warning" may appear at the beginning of certain articles. These are to warn that the articles contain disturbing themes that may trigger traumatic memories for sufferers. People may view these as a means of protecting the mental health of their readers or simply common courtesy. An example of a trigger warning is: "TRIGGER WARNING: This content deals with an account of sexual assault and may be triggering to some people." (From Wikipedia) Comments- I'm totally open to altering stuff in the resolution. Don't be a penis and accept and then complain about stuff in the resolution. If you not pick and fail to use common sense please, don't even bother me. I'm only open to making way changes in the resolution that take like 5 seconds. Also any attempt to noob snipe me by interpreting the resolution in a way that doesn't appeal to common sense should result in a 7 point win awarded to me. Edit: According to Bluesteel I should state whether definitions are prescriptive or descriptive or something. It's descriptive, duh.