BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

the fact kids are drinking early anyway doesn't mean we should lower the drinking age. it has nothing to do with their matrity being the best predicate for the age to drink. con says lowering the age will reduce the mystique and so kids wont drink. i see no evidence of this. id suppose kids will drink when they are +*** well wanting to, but that doesnt mean we should lower it to meet them at their level. if it's propostureous to allow smoking and not drinking, that doesn't mean we should lower the drinking age. if anything, that means we should raise the smoking age. there is a maturity issue with choosing to smoke as well afterall. this is similar to the military thing... things should coincide better, but just because they dont doesnt mean we should lower the age, it means they should coindice at teh point of maturity.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

First off, I'm glad to have of made your friendship. Second off, kids are already drinking well before theyre 21, some kids even start. Drinking as early as middle school, so if the age was lowered maybe that would give kids a little more reason to wait a bit to drink. The drinking age in Canada is 19, kids who want to drink legally always go to Canada to get liquor. Its just like medica marijuana, all the law is doing is making it harder for people to get it. But if kids were allowed to do it and there parents said ok to the idea of drinking, then kids wont defy there parents and drink because its cool, which will lead to them not getting there friends to drink which would lead to less drinking in schools if we lower the age to drink. But maybe we raise the penaltys for driving drunk and underage drinking. Im not going to start on the reasons why we should raise the age of enlisting people in the military since i agree with you but for a different reason. But for the parents who already agree with letting there kids drink early, all they want is to be with there kid while they drink. Which is fine except for the fact that most kids drink with their buddies first. Whether that be at a college party or at friends house Tobacco and ciggarets are ruining peoples lives just as much as alchohol is. But that age is 18. So what that means is that we are telling kids its ok to chew spit or smoke, but its not ok to have one light beer on a sunday with your dad. That is propostureous.
weeping angels are better than daleks

a weeping angel can multiply by pictureAssuming someone takes/draws a picture, and someone doesn't destroy the photo/video. The picture isn't s strong, and takes no solid form, as shown in the series 5 two parter.daleks must be enginerd in a lab or created in some long process while Not necessarily. The very first ones, as shown in the first season's The Daleks, mutated from a common species on Skaro. Afterwards, somehow, a man named Davros started creating more through forced mutation of Skaro inhabitants (Genesis of the Daleks), and have recently developed the ability to transform humans, and presumably other species (Asylum of the Daleks). Soon Dalek technology may advance to Empty Child level, turning organisms into Daleks at a touch. The Daleks have constantly evolving methods of transformation, always fixing flaws. Weeping Angel reproduction is pure cloning, and therefore no mutation, and by extension evolution, possible, leaving any improvements a mere dream.
weeping angels are better than daleks

As the contender, I shall negate the resolution "weeping angels are better than daleks". Therefore, I need not prove that Daleks>Weeping Angels, only that Weeping Angels are not necessarily greater than Daleks, at least per my opponent's arguments. Now, I shall begin.A weeping angel is quick and merciless. even though it is quantum locked, it is harder to outsmart...Do you outsmart anything without smarts in the first place? Weeping Angels blindly feed on others' time energy, and donn't really think where they step. It's not very difficult to trick one into a mirror, or looking another of its kind in the eyes (Time of the Doctor and Blink, respectively).kill itself if orderedBut they would only be ordered if death is a known strategic advantage, showing there high senses of strategy, cunning, and, most of all, intelligence.exterminate own team in some casesSee aboveand even believe a jammy dodger is an explosives detonatorFrom a distance, and they were able to figure out it was a Jammy Dodger within minutes. Even if they were suspicious, better safe than sorry.........................................................................................................................................................Now, I'd like to reiterate the Weeping Angels' complete lack of brains. They couldn't even compete with the time the Daleks accidentally erased Shakespeare from time, trapping themselves in a time rift, and using a combination of the knowledge of humanity's desire to get Shakespeare and time travel knowledge to trick the humans into helping them escape (Time of the Daleks). Clearly, the Daleks are not a dull bunch.
death sentence to criminal legal or illegal

I am confussed, the basis I am working off is poor, so I am just assuming that I am against the death sentence. The death sentence should not be in practice because the law has sentance many men and woman who have not commited a crime to death, which is unjust. The only solution for this is to not allow the practice of the death sentence to be carried out. Instead only inprisonment should be carried out, for at least it would make the standards of men more just.
John Lennon became jealous of Paul Mccartney's genius as he began to take leadership of the group.

Collaboration at the beginning but clearly created their own songs and at that point they participated on each others songs, contributed ideas. Know one knows exactly because they were distributed as Lennon/McCartney but the styles are unmistakable and easy to discern who's song was who's. With out a doubt Paul had tremendous respect for John and his creative talent but was never intimidated. I submit that Paul was excited by John's music and gladly added his ideas. The problem was that John grew to resent his input and impulsive nature to re-direct ideas toward his point of view. It wasn't Paul who decided to leave the group. Obviously there is a measure of tension in a group of people especially when creative juices are flowing, and both Ringo and George had threatened to leave near the end but I would not say that Paul and John did not get along. It just became a matter of personal musical direction. George at one time stated to Paul "I'll play whatever you want me to play, or I won't play at all if you don't want to me to play. Whatever it is that will please you, I'll do it." As the Beatles were winding down Paul had as he continued to have and still has today a never ending vault of energy and ideas and was just quite simply a little over bearing in his push to produce their art.
John Lennon became jealous of Paul Mccartney's genius as he began to take leadership of the group.

For this debate, I would like to acknowledge John Lennon and Paul McCartney's different writing styles. Because of this, it is very difficult to wage which artist is better at their art. I would also like to point out that 180 songs (most of which played by the Beatles) were Paul McCartney and John Lennon collaborations. Yes, there is evidence that John and Paul did not get along. The same issue happened with The band queen, who also made outstanding music. If John was jealous of Paul, it would also be very possible that paul was intimidated by John as well. This environment could very well be the reason they were competitive, producing amazing records that were high on the charts
John Lennon became jealous of Paul Mccartney's genius as he began to take leadership of the group.

I submit that at the beginning John was the leader as he brought Paul into his band the Quarryman and was clearly the leader and continued in that position as the Beatles became popular. John and Paul were both equally creative at the beginning. John was more a 50's style rocker (what is popularly refered to as 3 chord turn overs) and most of his songs continued to have this influnce even into the later years of the beatles. Paul was more innovative and pushed the Beatles into more progressive direction, using more complicated chord progressions and bringing in influnces of classical variations. Evenually John resented the bottomless pit of creativetivity which was Paul and the popularity of songs that Paul brought to the table. John resented Paul contantly telling him exactly how to play the parts in the songs that Paul had creative. By the way George also resented Paul telling him exactly how to play parts and said so in a famous televised recording session. Eventually John retreated into reclusion as far as over all day to day operations and decided to leave to reclaim some control over his musical existance. I love the Beatles and John was ingenius but not a genius. He was no Mccartney.
John Lennon became jealous of Paul Mccartney's genius as he began to take leadership of the group.

Because at that stage of the game everyone craved their own identity which just compounded their resentment of Paul's influence into their personal musical space. Paul would dictate how he wanted Ringo to play drum parts, how George should play lead (every note ) and John how to play and sing vocals. All began to rebel but John had the most difficult time because he was once 50/50 but that was not the reality anymore and he had no choice but to go out on his own.
John Lennon became jealous of Paul Mccartney's genius as he began to take leadership of the group.

I completely agree in that Paul is still a great artist who has unbelievable talents, but, again, a lot of this has to be with personal preference and the difficulty of music. John Lennon once said that Paul "provided a lightness, an optimism, while I would always go for the sadness, the dischords, the bluesy notes" with music, the minor chords are usually the most difficult, and require a high amount of musicality in order to compose with a full band. Not only that, but John would layer his lyrics with different meanings and symbolism. However, I would like to counter your statement of how Paul was not intimidated, or at least in awe, of Lennon. There was a dispute of how the credits of the Beatles songs would be. For instance, "yesterday" had the credit John Lennon/ Paul McCartney. While "love me do" was credited McCartney/Lennon. In fact, after Lennon died, McCartney had wanted the credit of "yesterday" to be switched back to his name first. An in-depth analysis of the legal issues surrounding the dispute is the subject of a 66-page Pepperdine Law Review article from 2006. If Paul was not intimidated by John, why would he care about such a silly thing as name order? They were both extremely popular, and still are.
My trash needs to be taken out right now.

It seems this debate will revolve around the counsel of parents. "While it is considered morally correct to listen to my parents, I do have a right to act upon my own accord when it comes to when I take out my own trash. There is no reason to concern oneself over whether or not the trash should be taken out, as it is just a matter of personal choice. I have a different definition of full than my parents, and my definition of full is when I can't fit ANYTHING in that bag."So now we see that Con admits it is morally correct to listen to parents. What more can be said? By admitting this, everything else he said is moot- he virtually concedes that the will of his parents overrides that of his own, that any definition of "full" he may have is worth nothing, and that he does not have the right to "act upon [his] own accord" when given a command by his parents. Con says there is "no reason to concern oneself over whether or not the trash should be taken out". Had you listened to your mother a week ago, there would be no need to concern yourself over this in the first place. Many times the directions your parents give you may not make sense, but nevertheless, you are inclined to obey them. Your parents are the reason you have a room to live in and a trash can to throw your Dr. Pepper cans into in the first place. Obeying your mother's direction to take out your trash is only showing her the decency and respect she deserves. I might also point out that we do not "own" our rooms, or our trash cans for that matter. Your parents bought the house you live in and likely bought you that trash can and the trash bags that go in it. This realization may shock you, but nevertheless it is true. I realized this at a young age and was all the more better for it. How does Con respond?
My trash needs to be taken out right now.

I am not considering my parents as annoying, in any way, in this argument. I just believe I should conserve as much space as possible and use the bag as long as I can. And I remain unphazed by your quote from Ehesians, as I am not a Christian. While it is considered morally correct to listen to my parents, I do have a right to act upon my own accord when it comes to when I take out my own trash. There is no reason to concern oneself over whether or not the trash should be taken out, as it is just a matter of personal choice. I have a different definition of full than my parents, and my definition of full is when I can't fit ANYTHING in that bag. http://ts4.mm.bing.net...; />
My trash needs to be taken out right now.

Interesting. I accept. I'm in need of a debate that doesn't take too much brain power. Young man, listen to your mother. There is absolutely no excuse to ignore a command from your parents for a minute, much less an entire WEEK!! I was like you once- I thought my parents were just so horribly annoying. Then I realized that they are simply concerned for me and deserve my respect. I know you said round one is for acceptance, so consider this to be simply an opening statement. For what it's worth, I'll leave you with a quote from the good book before turning it over to Con. Ephesians 6:2-3- "Honor your father and mother (which is the first commandment with a promise), so that it may be well with you, and that you may live long on the earth." I don't know if Con is a Christian or an atheist, but nevertheless, that's good advice. I strongly suggest you take it.
My trash needs to be taken out right now.

My mother, for the past week, has been saying I should take out my trash due to the papers sticking out and the Dr. Pepper bottle sitting next to it. I, however, do not believe it *needs* to be taken out, and that I should keep the bag around longer to store more trash in. Give me a reason to believe it needs to be taken out.Round one is for acceptance. http://s3.amazonaws.com...; width="492" height="493" />
Retribution: Right or Wrong

I would say that keeping them alive in any shape or form requires the support of society and torturing them for years sounds inhumane. Also sense you admit that you do not believe that they deserve anymore time on this earth then the victims and you also explian you simply do not like the thought of execution. I too do not like the thought of execution and I really wish it was not nessasary. No one should take pleasure out of simply killing someone, but justice is not a pleasant thing, it is swift and it is rightoeus. The "retribution" is society reclaiming the debt which an individual must pay with thier life for that which they robbed from another. Good luck with the votes indeed.
Retribution: Right or Wrong

Any person taken away is a dmage to society my friend. And it doesn't make it any more right to kill just one person than many. All killers are equal, even if some have killed more than others. Im not saying the criminals deserve any more time on earth than the victim, but there is a reason I don't like simply executing criminals. Yes, some killers enjoy benifets of society in prison. My punishment for them would be probably a lot less comfortable. I would lock them into the deepest darkest pit and keep them alive just enough so they can live the rest of their days in the dark. And one more thing. Any sense of satisfaction that comes from sentencing the one who killed your loved ones to die will not bring them back. I know, people are angry about it, and they dont have to forgive him, but killing them gains them nothing. Society may be safer, but there are always killers out there. There always has been, and always will be. And finally, I end with this point. The main reason I dont like killing off criminals is this. We are supposed to be better than them. We are supposed to be the good citizens. We are supposed to be the good guys fightig the bad guys. Its a tough thing to do, but thats the point. Its a test of resolve, a test to see if you are above the criminal you are sentencing. Thank you for shedding light on this different point of view my friend. Good luck with the votes.
Retribution: Right or Wrong

Well I would say all life is a precious thing. We are not given much time here to make our mark and help improve and contribute. However when one person cuts another's passing existence short should they be allotted more time? Now I would say locking them up in some facility and throwing away the key would be a dismal fate. However why would this individual deserve more time after robbing another's? Whether or not he is punished in the afterlife is beside the matter as he owes the debt in this realm. Furthermore we understand that some people who kill are insane or actually did it for a just cuase however others are just legitimate monsters that cannot be rehabilitation and chances are will never be productive. These people do not think or act like normal people like the rest of us, there is really something that is wrong with them that makes them a permanent threat to society. Also your equation of and eye for and eye may not be complete. For instance if you robbed a store and killed a someone or killed someone in a fight would perhaps would not warrant the same level of punishment as a serial killer. But in this world we are not able to preform any higher form of punishment. Would else could we do with a threat to society enslave him? let him while away the hours in a cell for fifty years while enjoying room and board supported by society? I really cannot see this being fair to the victim or society as a whole. But I ask you would the retribution involved in the family solely be that of the victim's family or of society at large?
Retribution: Right or Wrong

You have made several good points, and let me counter with some of my own. So you are going for the "Eye for an Eye" poilicy, equal in every respect. And your points of someone taking a person away from the world, every birthday, every celebration, everything that a normal person could have and it was just snuffed out, like swatting a fly, moves me as well. True, there are some monstrous people out there, and some deserve to be killed. .. But that is why not killing them is so important. We are charged to bring justice to these criminals, and they will. Ending them immediatly will probably only justify their claim to kill someone as the same was done to them. Let me ask you this. Have you ever done something you felt wrong about and lied about it, and eventually the guilt just started to get to you? If a killer murdered someone, ending his life would probably be too quick. Isn't a better punishment to make him live with what he has done, and if he doesn't comply, we should make him feel sorry for what he's done. I turn it over to you, opponent. Good luck.
Retribution: Right or Wrong

It is really a matter of justice and morality.If I had a family member whose life was taken by another for no just purpose then he deserves to suffer that fate. We as human beings can universally agree that murder is wrong. Furthermore we can almost universally agree in equality and justice. If you owe someone 400$ dollars and you do not pay them the courts will force you to pay them the 400 you are in debt. Thus the death penalty is another instance of this. You stole from another and their family this person's life.You are in debt for this taking of a life therefore the legal system has your life taken away. If you kill many you may still only pay with you life. If you kill thousands or millions like Hitler and Pol Pot you owe society not just the family and deceased individual for this act. However even the murder of a single individual has the most profound negative effect on a society; the person killed may be a mother, sister, lover, teacher, co-worker, life long friend etc. But to all of these members of society one person has robbed them all of this person. Since I affirm equality and justice and the legal system rectifying debts it is sound that we should allow the death penalty for those most cruel and evil offenses against individuals, families, communities and societies.
Retribution: Right or Wrong

I think I have had enough time to think about this subject as I have had it crammed down my throat for the past year or two. Im talking specifically about the death penalty. People do horrible things, and judges every year conclude that these people deserve to die...But is it really our place to say so? And I'm not taling just our modern day society. No, I mean through all time. I would really want to see someones point of view from the other end of the spectrum, as it confuses me. First, some ground rules. 1) State your arguements in a nice way. There is no need for bashing. 2) Keep it reasonable 3) Have a philisophical view on the subject as well. 4) Do your best to keep it clear and explain the best you can. With that, let's begin. I await an opponent.
Nuclear Power

Thanks for accepting the LonelyMoutain. I will be presenting my arguments in this round. Good luck!This is the first time I did this topic, and I'm making this debate just to see if the topic is good. Argument 1: Good for the environment Nuclear Power is good for the environment. Nuclear Power gives nearly zero amount of greenhouse gases [1] [2]. In 1998, there was a study that the greenhouse gases reduced around 50% percent because of nuclear power [2]. It is the safest way to get energy, and won't harm the environment, because it doesn't release C02 or methane, which is the main impact of greenhouse gases. Because it produces no greenhouse gases, and helps the environment more than burning fuels, and fossil fuels, countries ought to allow the production of nuclear power.Argument 2: Powerful and ReliableMy second argument is about Nuclear Power being powerful and reliable. It's more powerful than other energy resources, because of the good technology. Also, it is reliable because it has over 91% of efficiency rate, and it works on 24/7, unlike wind or solar power, it can also be used in harsh weather. Because Nuclear Power is powerful and reliable, I affirm.Argument 3: CheapThis is one of the main reasons why countries prefer nuclear power to solar power, etc. Nuclear Power is cheaper than Solar Power. Solar Power is also good for the environment, but people don't use them much because they are very expensive. But with Nuclear Power, the energy and electricity is cheaper than other energy resources, like wind and solar power. Because cheapness, which affects why people like nuclear power, and it is preferred over solar power, countries should ought to allow the production of nuclear power.'Argument 4: SupplyMy last argument will be about supply, and of how much nuclear power there is. Unlike nuclear power, fossil fuels are nonrenewable energy resources, meaning we will use them up one day, and there will be none left. We use them faster than making them. However, with Nuclear Power that is not the case. Because of lots of supply, countries should allow the production of nuclear powerConclusionI showed many different ways Nuclear Power being effective, it is cheap, lots of amount, and helps the environment. There is no choice except you to vote for PRO. Sources[1] https://greeningforward.org...[2] http://www.conserve-energy-future.com...