BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965)

Yes, it"s indeed true of the fact that Ms. Williams did go in to the furniture company to get a stereo set which wasn"t something that was really a household need, but was a necessity. As you stated, "Walker-Thomas isn"t the one to blame for providing customer service," but he is the one to blame for providing poor unconscionable acts towards certain individuals such as Ms. Williams. Yes, signing a contract is a form of a promise from one individual to another, but as they say "promises are made to be broken," such as this promise was broken completely, but the one to really blame is Walker-Thomas, because he has generally been recognized to include an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. So the question to ask is, did each party to the contract, considering his obvious education or lack of it, have a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract, or were the important terms hidden in a maze of fine print and minimized by deceptive sales practices? You decide on what"s right.
Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965)

It may be true. However, Williams came to Walker - Thomas on her own free will. So, is the company really the one to blame by providing her customer service? In the contract itself, there is not going to be fine print stating we offer second chances. A deal is a deal at the end of the day and the consequences are going to be stated. It is like making a promise and sticking to it. She made a promise by signing the contract and promising not to default. She ended up defaulting and she did not stick to what she initially signed. Williams knew that she had an overdue balance as well just as Walker- Thomas was aware. But, she really saw the stereo set as a necessity although she is living a struggling life. The contract should not be overturned because because the company is not doing anything wrong. If anything, Williams needs to stop going to the company knowing that she cannot afford these items or if she does, pay her installments on time and not default. Your comparison was great with the approval of a credit card. However, that is the individual's responsibility because they chose to add on additional debt, That is not anyone else problem but theirs. If I was struggling, I am not going to dig myself in a hole knowing that I am not going to be able to get out of it no time soon. This is where meaningful choice comes in because on behalf of the company and customer, both have knowledge of the terms within the contract. Similarly to the creditor example with the individual who cannot pay back a loan, that is meaningful choice because you wanted to take the loan out knowing that you are struggling and not be able to pay it back. The creditor is going to lend out more money because the customer keeps on coming to them and digging themselves in a hole more. With that being said, Ms. Williams is a part of this meaningful choice just as Walker- Thomas is because it is a contract and they obviously agreed.
Williams V. Walker- Thomas Furniture Co. (1965)

Yes, plaintiff Williams was responsible for the payments on her purchase, but every individual deserves a second chance, even though they did missed a payment and became defaulted on their prior account doesn"t mean it will happen once again. Walker-Thomas, on the other hand should have been a more responsible business owner, and had better business decision making skills. Knowing that the purchaser Ms. Williams had a prior account in default and still extended her credit to be able to purchase the stereo set she wanted, even though Walker-Thomas knew she wasn"t financial stable. Should the contracts be overturned on grounds of unconscionable acts of poor business practice? The answer should be answer accordingly to the ruling of favor on Williams, yes, she knew she couldn"t afford to make a purchase or to take on "more debt" sort to say, but she did. Just as if you"re approved for a credit card knowing that you already owe the creditor a certain amount of debt or balance, and is struggling to make the minimum payments you"re going to still make purchases and take on additional debt. So who is to blame on that part is the creditor, if you know an individual can"t pay back a loan and missed payments why would you lend out additional money? Just like Walker-Thomas, he knew Williams owed money from a prior account she possessed with his company, but still with poor decision making, and unconscionable business acts, he still went ahead and let Ms. Williams take on an additional loan for a stereo set knowing her financial hard ship she was in currently at the time of the loan was established to her.
Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead

My opponent and I come from different backgrounds so evidently that's how it is in perception. He cannot impose his values/beliefs upon me and expect them to be fully followed. Would anyone give up their freedoms for someone they have never met/do not know?My opponent makes a claim that he's been debating for years, yet if you look at his profile you'll see that he only joined 2 days ago. Whether or not he meant on this site is irrelavant as he is only concerned with his image on this site. My opponent fails to realize the old-fashioned trait that winning is everything is false.I'm don't claim to have lost and I won't. But unlike Pro, I'm not claiming to have won.
Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead

Guys, I'm not going to dodge this issue. I don't really care to have a pointless tie debate on my record because my opponent didn't follow the rules. I am more than willing to have this debate with him; but he's going to have to follow the rules. I get that this issue isn't a big deal to him, but it is to me. I realize that at some point in the future I'm going to lose. I've been debating for a good number of years now and I'm not going to throw a fit because I lost a round. That said, who actually wants to lose? And for that matter who wants to have a tie? Both of those things kind of suck no matter how used to them you are, and I don't have any desire to tie a debate because my opponent doesn't want to lose. Further, whether my opponent meant his statements as a joke or not are irrelevant. When you make those kind of statements on the internet devoid of any context, they can come off as offensive and/or immature. But it's not even that there was no context For me, they came off as an attempt to bait me into debating despite Con breaking the rules I set out for this debate to operate under. Anyway, like I said in the very first round, posting anything other than the phrase 'I Accept' in the first round is grounds for a full forfeiture of the round. Hopefully Con will take this as a lesson and make sure to fully read the rules for a debate before accepting it. I've recreated this debate and it is currently in the open debate section. I welcome my opponent to accept it and try to give me this loss back.
Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead

I apologize for appearing to have insulted my opponent. The afraid bit was more of a bit of humor than a serious accusation. I would like to clarify that I did want to take this debate seriously (being a vegan myself). I'd also like to point out that a tie has no impact on one's debate record (a look at my profile will prove that). Only losses pull down a 100% streak. Also, my opponent cannot predict the future and expect only wins, so I'd advice him/her to be a bit more open to loss. I'd love to redebate with my opponent, but I cannot debate him again due to me already being engaged in a debate. As such, we'll have to complete all rounds.
Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead

Con, you're the one who broke the rules in the first place. I don't appreciate you calling me a coward because you decided that it wasn't important to debate in the manner the instigater specified. I will not concede to a tie. I have no interest in messing up my debate record because of Con's mistake. I've re-issued this challenge and it is currently in the open debate section. If Con would like to accept it instead of talking smack about me, I would be more than willing to debate him again. I wouldn't have issued this challenge in the first place if I didn't want to debate this resolution.
Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead

This could have made an excellent debate, though my opponent seems too afraid to pursue, instead turning to minor inconveniences to clarify a win over me. I'll admit to not following the strict rules completely, but I do not think it fair to call this a loss. I say a tie and a rechallenge between the two of us would be a better grounds than to part on trodden ground so to speak.
Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead

= Disambiguation = Pro will argue that individuals who practice veganism on a a moral principle should prefer freeganism as a morally superior diet. = First round = This round is acceptance and clarity only. If you the as the contender decide to accept this debate, you may only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in the your first round. Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points of the debate. If there is a need for clarity, it should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting the debate. = Rules = 1. This will be a public debate. The emphasis will be one clear communication and effective on-case arguments. There should be no discussion of framework, or use of debate jargon in the round. 2. The BOP will be balanced between the Pro and the Con. Neither side will maintain presumption so if at the end you believe the debate to be a tie no vote should be cast. 3. No semantics! = Definitions = [1] Vegan: "a strict vegetarian; someone who eats no animal or dairy products at all" [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] Freegan / Freeganism: "Freeganism is an anti-consumerist lifestyle whereby people employ alternative living strategies based on "limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources"." [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Does God exist?" is a scientific question that should be taught in science class.

When I said the first part, I was referring to things that don't actually affect us physically in everyday life. I don't care what religions say is sacred. Religious beliefs don't belong in science classes. If a religious person claims that (To use your examples) frogs, chairs, or the human body are holy, then it doesn't matter. Religious beliefs shouldn't effect someone's curriculum and what they're learning. The, once again, have no place in ANY sort of scientific evironment. I agree we need to either respect every religion or respect none. Personally, I think that we shouldn't respect any of them. When I said "God" I was referring mainly to mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Islam, and others of that kind. However, I cannot think of any religions that still exist today that worship tangible Gods. I would also like to mention that I have no religious bias. It is impossible for me to have it, because I'm an atheist. Personally, I don't believe in ghosts, spirits, ESP, all that. The "science" behind that is all just so much woo. However, I do agree with the last point. Just because we don't know much about a subject doesn't mean we can't use the scientific method to learn more.
"Does God exist?" is a scientific question that should be taught in science class.

I will defend my argument this round. "While I understand what you're saying, I believe that science should only deal in facts and very well supported theories, not theological problems like the existence of God." WJKosacs Here's the problem, you can add a religious or philosophical question to anything. If a religion sees frogs as holy, should we no longer be allowed to talk about frogs in biology class? The same goes for chairs, tables, rodents, and the human body. Imagine if we couldn't talk about how the heart worked because somebody made a religious claim. By making God taboo in science class we are allowing religion to gain some level of influence and respect over science. Impact, if religon and philosophy can impose upon science by claiming ordinary objects, animals, and people as religious, science can do the opposite, and claim the supernatural for science. More importantly, this is a double standard. In the sense, we are respecting some religions in science class but not others. There are hundreds of religions out there. Many of which would view the moon, sun, and the Earth as Gods. Yet, we are allowed to talk freely about the existence of the moon. Nobody says "hey, don't talk about the moon leave that for religion!" Not only that but we talk about how scientifically the moon, sun, and Earth were formed. No, we don't respect those religions, instead we respect only a few mainly Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Therefore, in science we need to either respect every religion and completely abandon biology and astronomy or respect none. "We can't experience God in any tangible way" Again, which God and which religion? If we are talking about the sun as God, yes then we can experience God in a tangible way. Since the sun's ray warm out bodies and provide light to play Pokemon Go. By the very doubts you express you show commitment to an incorporeal God. Yet, not every religion's God(s) are incorporeal. This is exactly what I am talking about. Students are entering science classes with religious bias that interferes with their learning. Impact, my opponent has shown religious bias furthering my point that we need to let go of religious bias to be truly open to science. Furthermore, we can use science to track the incorporeal like ghosts. There are entire fields devoted to tracking ghosts and ESP (extra sensory perception). We can use evidence like placing various measurement devices and cameras in a location renowned for ghosts and see what happens. Impact, just because we have little to no knowledge on a subject, doesn't mean we can't use the scientific lens and modality of thinking to approach the problem. Thanks for continuing the debate.
"Does God exist?" is a scientific question that should be taught in science class.

While I understand what you're saying, I believe that science should only deal in facts and very well supported theories, not theological problems like the existence of God. God and whether or not he exists should be a question left in religion class (World religions, if available) since there is no way to scientifically prove anything about God. You see, God is a concept. It would be like trying to prove that nothing is a real thing. We can't understand or experience nothing, and so we can't prove it. We can't experience God in any tangible way, and since we don't have a time machine we can't know for absolute certain whether or not the world was created (Creation instead of formation would prove a God exists). So, since it is and will continue to be unprovable either way in the forseeable future, it should remain where it belongs. In a religion class.
"Does God exist?" is a scientific question that should be taught in science class.

I think the question of "does God exist?" is a scientific question. The reason being is if God exists, this makes a profound difference in the way we view the universe. If God exists, this drastically changes what scientists should be looking for. Therefore, the question of does God exist should be taught in science class. The approach should be logical, evidence based, and scientific as opposed to faith based and religious arguments. More precisely students should be taught the lack of evidence of God existing and that scientifically God does not exist. [1] This may sound silly, but I think students who are taught both science and religion become confused in science class. "Gee, why aren't they teaching creationism?" I think the teacher should be required to tell the class that creationism is not scientific and instead is a faith based approach, ditto with intelligent design. Same goes with the Big bang theory. [2] I know I was confused when I was taught the big bang theory, I was like "why aren't they teaching Adam and Even?" I'm sick of science classes paying too much respect to religion. Because, religion sure doesn't respect science. As long as this issue isn't addressed, students will see science through a jaded eye. "Hahhaha the big bang theory is all wrong because God created the world differently." Religious students will not be able to take science seriously, and their grades will suffer. With grades suffering, so will the chances of scholarships, getting into better colleges, and desirable careers. Thanks in advance to my opponent for accepting. Sources1. http://atheism.about.com...2. http://science.nasa.gov...
True Communism is Not Evil

"A person should not be afraid to wage war or revolution in the development of global revolution against the bourgeoisie.I take this to be the communist position and suggest that it is arbitrary and evil."It comes not from a place of arbitration and evilness, but of one that feels like there is an evil force that is oppressing the masses through capitalism. As Marx Himself put it in The Communist Manifesto:"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes."And, of course, the very well-known quote from the same manifesto:"The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains."I will not claim that communism is perfect, nor shall I claim that it is pure good; however, it was based on the belief that we need to rise against a nearly pure evil, to free ourselves and our posterity. While morally questionable by some in some respects, I would find it hard to call it "evil" at all."In so far as there are any categorical moral truths then the most obvious one is resistance to the inevitable march of history."With this said, let us strive to make a future better than what the past has afforded us.
most states should not yet legalize pot

The problems it causes, are your perception of reality. Have you considered what problems it alleviates? HAVE YOU?!!!!!!!! Many more are happy for it then are cursed by it. That is plain fact, just spend your big subsidized farm bucks and petition the users equally. Surely that will never happen as you have made up your mind. Every tax dollar spent to fund a new "miracle cure"/ "snake oil"/ the latest and greatest substitute for nature, comes with a little folder of fine print too small for anyone older then 30 to read wwithout a magnifying glass describing the side effects. Meanwhile, Wall Street and the Pharmaceutical Devils laugh all the way to the bank. That is acceptable? NO. Period. As your leader would say. LOL!
if mortal kombat were to face of with dc universe mortal kombat would win

scorpion/super man: my opponent states that scorpion could be worn down this is in fact inccorsct beacuse of the fact that when he dies his soul goes to hell and hell spits him back out in a new vessel and so there fore i do not understand what my opponent states by wearing down scorpion. also my opponent said that i was reffering to a fatality move which scorpion would not use during combat but this has been proven to be incorrect beacuse scorpion did that exact thing when fighting jhonny cage in the first movie i will show as the first video on the right also let me point out that the only reason they showed jhonny cage beating scorpion was to continue the plot. http://www.youtube.com... martian manhunter/shang tsun: my opponent stated that martian manhunter did not longer have a psychosomatic fear of fire well please provide a link with the info and according to this link also the martian man hunter was killed by the human flame right so i think fire still has effect as well shang tsung gets his power from the gods he worships and so the fire is not the same as rgular earth fire and will be a little like the fire from scorpion and so it should still take the same effect and especially since shang tsung can manipulate it extremely easily for example when he made it into a snake. raiden/black adam: this is in fact inccorect that the gods can be killed beacuse raiden and the other elder gods have fought and died then there "spirit energy comes back and retakes their form" the seacond video on the right shows this http://www.youtube.com... the only thing that raiden would have to do is send electric shocks through black adam's body causing black adam to teleport into space causing instatenous death and raiden might die as well but due to his status as a god he has the power to come back and help the other fighters sub zero/flash: while this is true and as i only paired the two beacuse i needed the others characters but at the same time as i was stateing earlier sub zero can create a clone in which flash would get frozen from and he can freeze the ground which causes sub zero to slip and therefore renders it use less. green lantern/shao khan: im sorry for not specifying but by shao khan i meant dark khan i am sorry for not specifying and so i would like your consent in this but if not i will still argue with shao khan. i am sorry for lack of links as i was haveing trouble with the comp and here are he links http://mortalkombat.wikia.com... http://mortalkombat.wikia.com... http://mortalkombat.wikia.com... http://mortalkombat.wikia.com... http://mortalkombat.wikia.com... http://mortalkombat.wikia.com... all my ablilties listed are in the links i look forward to my opponent expanding on his characters abilities
if mortal kombat were to face of with dc universe mortal kombat would win

Fighters: - [1] Superman - [2] Maritan Manhunter - [3] Black Adam - [4] The Flash - [5] Green Lantern ~ Additional Terms: No playing semantics. I reserve the right to use additional sources in reference to my character's abilities, these are simply to establish identity. ~ I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments. ~ [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...
morality=survival truth

Again Pro has refused to explain his position. He has not provided a single example. He says morality = survival according to the title. He then says survival is the opposite of suicide, does he mean to say suicide is immoral? Who knows. He has not demonstrated how self sacrifice is immoral. Another example would be of a terminally ill patient seeking to end their own life. How is such immoral? I'll now posit an example of how survival can be immoral. For example to the institution of slavery. Slavery is in itself immoral, upon this immorality lies the survival of both the master and the subsistence of the slave. The continuation of this system, aka survival, is immoral. Many slaves would often commit suicide rather than help their owners continue such a system. If Pro had a point it has been refuted.
morality=survival truth

My opponents premise is survival = morality - it does not implicate self sacrifice as a moral virtue, nor does he even bother to expand upon his own vagueness. He refuses to expand upon his premise merely responding with single sentences. He provides no context nor definitions. Another example I'll provide which Pro can't refute: If all of humanity where to disappear, the earth would continue to exist. The sacrifice of humanity would not constitute the earths survival as the earth is not a living thing. It is an amoral scenario. Therefore morality =/= survival If my opponent continues to refuse to provide detail or any context or further understanding of the OP he must forfeit.