BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lowering the voting age

Hello Jane. And hello guys. In December 19th in 2008, we have presidential election. In election, if people are over 19, our country give us a voting quality. I think we have to lower the voting age. According to Dr. Sam, people always said if we give university student a voting quality, they will pick wrong president because they are stupid and they have short thinking, plus because they have low ages. Well, it's wrong. I mean it could be in old days, because they are poor so they can;t study well so they don't know how to pick a great president. But now a days, it's different everyone. Now a days, there is less that student can't study. So they can be smart then in old days students so they can choose a great president. So we can lower the voting age. In 2008, we have many president candidates. And they come out with many reduction. But, can we believe it? I think that lower ages student can't pick great president is no just they are stupid, short thinking or they have low ages. It's because president candidates said lie in they're reduction. So we need to lower a voting age. According to homepage kuro5shin, lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout. For several reasons lowering the voting age will increase voter turnout. It is common knowledge that the earlier in life a habit is formed the more likely that habit or interest will continue throughout life. If attempts are made to prevent young people from picking up bad habits, why are no attempts made to get youth started with good habits, like voting? If citizens begin voting earlier, and get into the habit of doing so earlier, they are more likely to stick with it through life. Kids Voting is a program in which children participate in a mock vote and accompany their parents to the polls on Election Day. Reports show that even this modest gesture to including youth increased the interest in voting of their whole family. Parents were more likely to discuss politics with their kids and thus an estimated 600,000 adult voters were more likely to vote because of it. Lowering the voting age will strengthen this democracy for all of us.
animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses

First, animal testing for mental effects is needed to isolate variables. If we simply watch and study then it will not in a controlled environment so it will be difficult to isolate what variable effects what aspect of the mind. Second, he dropped my genetic testing argument. We need to conduct genetic testing on animals to best improve the species. Third, his only argument about farmers testing for yield is that we are testing methods, not the animals themselves. This is false, we test methods ON the animals. With medicine, we are not testing the animal itself, but the effectiveness of the medicine on the animal. There are two ways to view his argument then. One, testing medicine on animals is not the same as animal testing, meaning his entire case is based on a false premise. Or two, testing medicine on animals is the same as animal testing, in which case testing different methods of raising animals is animal testing. Either way, the resolution is false. In summary, the con only has to prove one scenario where the resolution is false. I provide three. If even one of the three points I bring up stand, then the resolution ought to be negated.
animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses

Okay, luckily I am back and can continue. my opponent argued that scientists test animal to see how the mind works. You do not have to test animals to see how the mind works. you can simply watch and study them. (not the same thing as testing). my opponent also argued that farmers are constantly testing different methods of raising animals to produce the highest yield for meat and dairy products. That is true, but the farmers are testing different methods of raising the animals, not actually testing the animals. all new medicines are required to be tested by animals. First they must show that the drug is safe, therefore, animals wont get hurt if their tested with medicines that are safe to be tested. http://www.drhadwentrust.org... Thank you I look forward to hearing from you.
animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses

Sorry, but I will not have enough time to post my full argument, I have been helping my mother move all week. Thanks my opponent is debating with me on the word "only" See, I argued," animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses. I should have worded the title better, but moving on. It is very hard to continue the debate because my opponent and I agree, and I cant find anything wrong with what my opponent says, and I know that I should not say that, but I have a lot to do, and I will say my arguments in the next round. I am sorry and I hope I don't lose votes because of this. Thank you!
animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses

Okay, I agree with everything my opponent said about supporting medical research. However, I also think animal researching should be justified in testing for purposes beyond medical research. I will be attacking the resolutions use of the word "only". First, some definitions medical-of or pertaining to the science or practice of medicine medicine is any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness; medicament; remedy. testing- A basis for evaluation or judgment:: all Definitions from dictionary.com unabridged. Now, I argue animal testing should be allowed for non medicinal uses such as psychology, agricultural and genetic testing. 1-Scientists constantly test animal psychology to better understand how the mind works. This testing has greatly increased our scientific knowledge. Large amounts of information on the mind has been developed from animal testing [1] 2- Farmers are constantly testing different methods of raising animals to produce the highest yield for meat and dairy products. This testing has increased the amount of meat and dairy products we can get from animals, resulting in farmers making more money and people having to pay less for food. This positively benefits society as it helps solve world hunger. The less people have to pay for food the more they can eat. 3- Genetic manipulation- This links back to the basis of my opponents case. Its better to risk a 100 rats than a million humans. Scientists are testing various genetic manipulations in animals to see how it effects them. Animals are very similar genetically to humans. This testing could provide invaluable data for future manipulation of humans. Furthermore, even testing for products no meant for humans is beneficial. Farmers could test genetic manipulation on cows, for example, to produce higher meat and dairy product yields. 1-http://www.psychology.org...
animal testing should be legal, but only for medicinal uses

First let me start off by defining myself: animal testing: the use of non human animals in research for purposes of determining the safety of substances. medicinal: used for the cure of bodily disorders. "Sara" is a little girl. Her mother has cancer, and she will die soon. there is a scientist who thinks he has the cure for cancer. He can do one of three things. He can either a) give it to the mother and risk the chance of the medicine killing her or severely hurting her. b) test it on some animals and see if there are any side effects. c) throw it away and forget it. ---which one seems like the most intelligent answer? It is better to kill a hundred rats to save millions of lives. According to http://altweb.jhsph.edu... Without animal testing, we might have never found the cure for polio, and insulin for diabetic people. there are also many other cures that we have found from animal testing. we are currently animal testing to find the cure for HIV/AIDS. There are also strict rules and guidelines that the scientists have to follow in order to take care of their lab animals, according to http://www.ncabr.org... thank you and I look forward to debating this topic.
Does the god mentioned in the bible exist

Argument: Im not going to write much but heres a link for you that god exists. Oh and look! Its written by athetists! https://www.everystudent.com... Rebuttal(s): -"None of then have any good evidence supporting them." As mentioned in my previous argument and obviously Im pretty sure you didnt bother to read it,the definition of miracles is:an event which is inexplicable by natural or scientific laws and hence attributed to divine agency. -Um no WRONG. COMPLETELY WRONG. Obviously it was according to Steven Hawkings. Wow a 13 year old knows how to use google apart from an athetist who spent more than 13 years denying god. I didnt know you athetist deny google too. Oh and look hes like you denying that god didnt create earth which sets him on the same path as you denying god. Well look at this:https://www.theguardian.com.... There is something I"d like to touch on regarding this article: -But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary". He then says and I quote,"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." So was it pure coincidence that somehow everything was formed through the laws of gravity. I"d like to question my opponent(although he may be too scared to answer and rely on the one and only quote he uses all the time,"I dont know."),who created gravity? Ladies and gentlemen I"d also like to pull your attention to the fact that in my opponents last argument he stated that hes not going to bother with the rest of my argument. Through this its either he doesnt want to answer it as hes too lazy or he has no answer. And also notice that he does not counteract to whatever I say and has not given any argument god does not exist but just counteracts to whatever I say? Which brings me to question ladies and gentlemen:does my opponent have solid proof god does not exist? Also notice that he didnt mention in his last argument he was "out of space"?
Anthropogenic Global Warming Denial

I accept the challenge to this debate.I must clarify, I am not an interested conservative or libertarian, so may I choose those option whilst being uninvited?If so I pick B) because it seems more interesting.Otherwise I will be arguing for Anthropogenic Global Warming Denial in a general sense.I promise not to: write to much characters, coment my source on other pages, use images, study language meaning, or vote on the debate.
Anthropogenic Global Warming Denial

This is an exhibition debate. Do not vote on this debate.The reality of anthropogenic global warming stands in opposition with the notions of un- or under-restricted capitalism and industrial freedoms, a core component of right-wing and strict libertarian ideology. This is reflected in the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary: except for Huntsman, all Iowa Caucus candidates deny AGW, or at least express skepticism about it. (Romney accepted AGW in June of 2011, but changed his mind four months later.) This issue is thus not easily separable from mainstream conservatism.I therefore invite any interested conservative or libertarian on DDO to accept this debate and to select one of the following resolutions:A) Resolved: Global warming is not taking place.B) Resolved: Human activities do not significantly contribute to global warming.Having chosen one of the resolutions, the person who accepts this debate will have the burden of proof to establish and defend the resolution. If my opponent chooses Resolution B, it will be assumed that global warming is taking place.Rules:1) Having the burden of proof, my opponent may make his argument in this opening round, thus having the first and last word. To compensate for this, my opponent's closing statement should not exceed the unused character space in his first two statements. To put it another way, my opponent's total character count for the debate should not exceed 16,000.2) Sources may be placed on a separate page, but this page must be used only for sources; not for argument or commentary of any kind.3) There should be no images in the body of debate. Links to images may be inserted as parentheticals to arguments. For instance: "this image (link) shows a 50-year trend of decreasing ice in this region." Such a link should be only to the picture itself (a file usually ending in .jpg or .gif), not to a website.4) No semantics.5) Unless one of the debaters obviously fails to comply in good faith with these rules, there should be no voting on this debate. Any votes cast should be countered to ensure an even score at the end, unless there is a firm consensus that one of the debaters has committed an egregious rules violation. (Round forfeiture or concession shall not be grounds for uneven voting.)
Legalizing Weed

Yea xD I like to be thorough."Look when people smoke stuff and end up in trouble it usually not said to be weed, because the stuff people do and get in trouble for when theyr on different stuff is violent if your on weed and get in trouble like i said its for something stupid."Like I said...DUIs, prison rates, etc..."And honestly i think they should take away ciggaretes period weed is a lot better for health yes it may caus problems but if your going by that then bye bye cigarettes and alcohol - and y ask why should they legalize the third because it has LESS consequences ( Health wise ) Then the other things."I'm just going to say that you should read my first contention. "I prefer sober people driving but think about when its weed ITS HIGH LOL So theyrs really no danger you might drive slower because your calm and out of it but still its better then being under the influence, because then you drive like your insane. And if theyr not always confined there house make them give them rules"According to the LA Times "People who smoke marijuana within a few hours of getting behind the wheel may be almost twice as likely to cause an accident" (1)Yep. The debate is over....1. http://articles.latimes.com...;
Legalizing Weed

WOW Thats a lotta stuff lol- Look when people smoke stuff and end up in trouble it usually not said to be weed, because the stuff people do and get in trouble for when theyr on different stuff is violent if your on weed and get in trouble like i said its for something stupid. And honestly i think they should take away ciggaretes period weed is a lot better for health yes it may caus problems but if your going by that then bye bye cigarettes and alcohol - and y ask why should they legalize the third because it has LESS consequences ( Health wise ) Then the other things. I prefer sober people driving but think about when its weed ITS HIGH LOL So theyrs really no danger you might drive slower because your calm and out of it but still its better then being under the influence, because then you drive like your insane. And if theyr not always confined there house make them give them rules BTW- This is soo cool lol ( Its my first debate)
Legalizing Weed

One step at a time..."Which is why i said make it illegal to drive while under the influence"It is illegal, the rate went up despite the illegality."And lots of people smoke weed, lots of people smoke cigarettes."Relevance? " if you have 3 things, all of which have dangerous side effects, two are legal, one is illegal, why should the government legalize the third?" (From round 1) "When do you here someone say their relative died from smoking weed?" How is this even relevant to the discussion? Also, I posted many statistics and health concerns..."we're going to have crime anyways right? Think about take away the drugs we'll still have crime. So dont try to blame the rate on weed."Generally, increasing these crime rate is no-no. Question: when you drive, would you prefer the driver next to you to be sober or drunk?"But look criminals smoke drugs lots of different drugs i know thats bad but still its not weed"Relevance?"most people that smoke weed are relaxed or caught doing stupid things like walking around naked lol at least we're to busy being hi to kill people"And yet, "between 1919 and 1922, government-sponsored clinics within in the United States handed out free drugs to addicts. This was an attempt to control behavior. It failed. Why? 1) society revolted against it. They did not want this. 2) crime went up. Let's fast-forward a few years. In 1976, California decriminalized marijuana. After 6 months, "arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles." Plain statistics. Legalizing marijuana leads to more people driving under the influence. Imagine what would happen on a National scale. Imagine how many more drivers, and pedestrians, are at risk because a minority want to smoke freely"DUI's kill...end of story."the government needs to be worrying about more important stuff then what people smoke when they are in their confined homes"Considering people who use drugs are not always confined to their homes...as I showed.
Legalizing Weed

Which is why i said make it illegal to drive while under the influence, And lots of people smoke weed, lots of people smoke cigarettes. When do you here someone say their relative died from smoking weed? And crime went up when people smoked weed? Wow we're going to have crime anyways right? Think about take away the drugs we'll still have crime. So dont try to blame the rate on weed. But look criminals smoke drugs lots of different drugs i know thats bad but still its not weed most people that smoke weed are relaxed or caught doing stupid things like walking around naked lol at least we're to busy being hi to kill people, the government needs to be worrying about more important stuff then what people smoke when they are in their confined homes
Legalizing Weed

Why Shouldn't We Be Allowed to smoke weed? Because the government says it makes you lazy... Lets see which is better, dying from cigarettes or being lazy from weed?? Legalize smoking it in the house or at a party lol. Give it rules like not smoking behind the wheel or while operating machinery, some bullish like that LOL. Partys are better when ur hi :D Likes it up !!!!!
Safe sex should be taught in public schools instead of abstinence.

The number of growing teen pregnancies and STD rates across the United States proves: abstinence education simply is not doing the job. Teens are just too impulsive to not have sex, especially in this day and age, where sex is everywhere one turns. The media teaches teens to have sex. There is not enough education on how to be safe. While one might think "we all know how to use a condom", there is not enough education. Especially common is the myth that using two or three condoms is better than using one. Teens frequently use condoms wrong, although this may seem like an unproven argument, the statistics are only getting higher, friends, and it is important that teens know their options so that they can be safe. Even if safe sex goes against some parents' values, it is the right of an American public school system to do all that it can to protect students from STDs and unwanted pregnancies. It is in the best interests of teens across the United States that we teach not only abstinence, but safe sex and contraceptives to all public high school students.
Safe sex should be taught in public schools instead of abstinence.

My response in round two sums up my argument for this debate. To meet the character requirements, I'll give online resources for further information: Guttmacher: http://www.guttmacher.org... Centers for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov... Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.: http://www.siecus.org... Planned Parenthood: http://www.plannedparenthood.org... Kaiser Family Foundation: http://www.kff.org... Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality: http://www2.hu-berlin.de...
Safe sex should be taught in public schools instead of abstinence.

I'll continue to clarify my reply from round 1. Having "safe sex" taught in public schools is impossible because there is no such thing as "safe sex," which I've established in round 1. Instead, I would suggest looking at options which are technically possible such as: abstinence-plus/comprehensive sex education, abstinence-only sex education, nothing at all, or possibly another type of program. Abstinence-plus/ comprehensive sex education is generally defined in literature as teaching about condoms in addition to the choice of abstinence. Abstinence-only education in literature is generally defined as teaching that abstinence is the only way to go. If the abstinence-only curriculum talks about condoms it's in terms of failure rates. According to the Waxman Report (1), in abstinence-only education there's also a lot of misleading information such as anatomy and physiology errors, errors concerning contraception, and gender stereotypes taught within popular curricula. Researchers such as Douglas Kirby and DeClemente would suggest comprehensive sex education since, compared to abstinence-only sex education, it reduces high risk sexual behavior and increases the likelihood of condom use with first intercourse. The studies they refer to normally have abstinence only as a comparison group since it acts as a better control group than no form of sex education at all. We're left to infer that comprehensive sex education is better than no sex education. If there is a conflict with whether sex education belongs in the public school system there is the option for no sex education. This is also an option. However, we're left with questions such as who will provide this information if the school won't? If information is provided elsewhere, can we be confident students will get information from accurate sources? Can we be confident parents are always willing and are competent to teach sex education? Is it not the student's right to have knowledge in order to make better informed decisions, especially when it concerns their own well being? In summary here, in a choice between "safe sex" education and abstinence-only it's clear we don't have a choice because technically there is no such thing as "safe sex" education. If we recognize that there are more choices than "safe sex" education (which technically is impossible and therefore not really a choice) and abstinence only (which doesn't sound too wonderful), we can look at other options such as comprehensive sex education or no sex education at all. My argument is that we technically cannot choose the option given. Therefore, we must choose an option we technically can choose; so, we must choose something else. Also, as the band Rush so wisely states: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." References: 1. http://oversight.house.gov...
Safe sex should be taught in public schools instead of abstinence.

~~~ Highlighting Fallacies Within the Claim ~~~ The argument you're defending is: "Safe sex should be taught in public schools instead of abstinence." There are some flaws with this: Either-or Fallacy It commits an either-or fallacy. It makes the assumption that there are only two types of education to be taught: safe sex and abstinence. In fact you are ignoring abstinence plus/comprehensive sex education/safer sex education. Your "safe sex" is none of the above and I know of no supporting evidence of any program that only teaches "safe sex." Safe Sex Does Not Exist Technically there is no such thing as "safe sex." The term researchers use is "safer sex," which you are not using. Condoms are slightly fallible against protecting against HIV for instance (1). There are also issues with STIs such as herpes and HPV which transmit through skin contact not covered by a barrier method. No one wants a cold sore on their genitals and HPV strains 16 and 18 are associated with cervical cancer (2). ~~~ References ~~~ 1. http://www.cdc.gov... 2. http://www.cdc.gov...