BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Allow Muslim immigrants equal opporunity.

Allow Muslim immigrants equal opportunity. I see no reason to place a ban on Muslim immigrants. I feel that banning Muslim immigrants would be a victory for evil and terrorists. Yes, a few more terrorists may immigrate and thus incidents may happen in our country and people will probably die. Yet, this is the price for doing what's right and freedom. Furthermore, the terrorists would have just found a different target anyways. So, instead of killing people in country A they kill people in country B. Instead, we should be merciful and allow Muslim immigrants, many of which are women and children into our country. Thanks for the debate.
There is other life out there

In logic and in philosophy, there are 3 types of claims [1]:(1) Analytic: True by definitionFor example: All batchelors are unmarried; all squares have four sidesThese statements cannot be false without logical contradiction(2) Synthetic: Derived from empirical observation of the natural worldFor example: All batchelors are unhappy; alien life forms existThese statements are either true or false depending on what is observed.(3) Nonsense: Not true by definition, cannot be observed in the natural worldFor example: God exists; ghosts are real These cannot known as true or false. The claim "there is other life out there" is a synthetic statement. Since other life has not been formally observed, then it is false. Pro's claim is purely speculation. Formation of a theory without hard evidence.[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...;
Kids Should Only Play Games That Are Suitable For Their Age

Those very same parents that go out and buy the consoles and all the games, are those parents that get lazy at parenting, they want the kids to indulge themselves in the game instead of spending time with them. I get that a lot of parents are very busy these days, but money isn't important when you sacrifice core family values. And yes, plenty bad behaviors from children adopts from their elders and it is sad to say that most of it is from their parents. Most would bring up the excuse that nobody is perfect, but that is just a lazy response. So I'm not sure if you're trying to get parents to understand about reading age restrictions and basically NOT buying games that are not within age restrictions or are you just trying to raise awareness? Either way my point is, there are plenty problems and the best you can do i guess is figure out all those problems and raise awareness about everything instead of blaming just one thing. America is headed in the wrong direction and plenty people know that but there are also plenty people that just go along with it because they just dont want to commit to a better america.
Kids Should Only Play Games That Are Suitable For Their Age

I can see where your coming from but what about the effects. It's not always bad parenting but with video games certain things happen that cause problem when it comes to under aged kids playing video games that are inappropriate for their age. They put age restrictions on these games for a reason. Games are fine to play as long as it is in your age selection. The older people are supposed to be responsible when playing with these kids but if they can't and just letting these kids learn bad thing from these older people is not acceptable. Addiction also can be a big factor as it does cause school grades to drop, lacking social skills or avoiding socializing with other people. But all of those factors also play in the social stage. Younger kids are cocky and arrogant. But they aren't born with it. They learn from older people and that's were games that are not right for their age comes in. I'm not stopping games forever, I'm just trying to reduce the problems that is caused with younger people and when they have to go through the stage of becoming a adult. Of course all there are lots of other factors that contribute to these similar problems but it's not getting any better. Something needs to change or it will become a bigger problem overtime.
Kids Should Only Play Games That Are Suitable For Their Age

I agree that it contributes to bad behavior and disrespect especially in younger children, but its only a minor factor in the problems of children growing up today. Society is just completely unaware of so many of these factors, to name a few, in the education system, I believe all literature we were reading in school was terrible and lazy. I read literature that is pretty much a brain exercise, whereas in school it is just literature that teaches lessons that are better learned when the kids have those experiences themselves in any similar way to learn and grow themselves. Then there is lazy parenting, which includes not spending enough time teaching them real human values like caring for animals, growing their own food, caring for people who are hurt or hungry. Also making sure their children are given healthy food to eat instead of introducing them to junk food or fast food which really messes with brain chemistry and the ability for children to think about think more clearly at a deeper level. Basically what I am saying is when there are so many problems with society and how the average kid grows up, a simple video game restriction will NOT change anything...America needs a dramatic change in their quality of life, most are selfish, arrogant, cocky, money loving fools that they just get lazy when it comes to important things like raising their children for them to become great, not just average.
Kids Should Only Play Games That Are Suitable For Their Age

Kids should really not be allowed to play videos games that are not suitable for their age. Now let me explain why. Kids before the age of technology were outside playing outdoor games with friends and family. But now most kids are on their consoles playing videos games and most of them shouldn't be playing the games out there. Let's take the franchise "Call of Duty". Now from my past experience playing this game I have seen a lot of things that were inappropriate, disrespectful and sometimes racist. Most of them came from little kids between the age of 10-13. I found this very disappointing to see how many parents are unaware of the age restrictions on these video games. There's G,M,MA15+,R18+ and so on. How many kids do you think that are between the ages of 10-13 are playing videos games that are rated MA15+? Possibly 90% of them do! This is the problem that we must raise awareness to parents. The things I hear when I play are disgusting. ( Yes I do play every now and then) The biggest problem that most would agree to is the mixture of ages. Some are 10-13 or 15-18 or 20+. The problems arise when the older people act immature around the little kids when they play. Swearing, disrespect, bad behavior. The little ones learn from them thus spreading it around like a disease. Also the violence in games can stimulate the kids mind, having them think of more killing and whatnot. We must add more restrictions to what certain age groups can play. Greatly improve the restrictions of what the younger kids watch and play. So please I beg of you to raise the awareness of the situation. Thank You.
Failure

By the very nature of this debate it is important to note that Pro is for failure and Con is against it. Having made that clear, we can get started. Now the argument made by Pro indicates that failure is unavoidable. Sure, I would agree that at some point everyone will fail at something. But this argument doesn't make failure a good thing, rather we should always try to avoid failure, because it hurts us. Now Pro may say that failures are good learning experiences. I would agree, failures can teach us how to not fail in the future, as failing is something we all try to avoid.
The glass is half empty

So during this debate Pro uses the word "filled" very often, he also maintains the fact that at some point in time the cup was filled. His second remark in his last argument now says that the cup was created with water already in it. And thus contradicting his previous statement. Pro also goes on saying that time plays an important issue, outruling the many possibilites of filling the cup slowly. But the one thing he forgets is that when somebody fills a cup from 0%-50% they are not required to "empty" the cup and thus his time point does not stand. Not only has Pro failed to explain his argument he decides to re-enforce his weak points and even agree to mine. "* My opponent is correct when he says a cup in the process of filling is 50% full, while a cup being poured is 50% empty. " And for those reasons the glass is half full.
The glass is half empty

First I will mention that filled meant filled at any point in time whether it be in that instance or 4 years ago. On the cup's position let's just assume the cup was created with the water in it. Regardless of what happens to it, whether it be drank or filled, drinking virtually almost always takes longer. As it is used numerous times than it will spend a longer amount of time being drank or emptied. That is my argument.
The glass is half empty

Okkkaayyy, it seams Pro is taking it a "tad" bit to far. But that is okay. " Mwahahahahahahahahahhaah.......etc" Pro here has defined the words filled, and fill. Which he hasn't exactly referred back to in his argument. Okay so since his argument was quite short mine will be no longer than Pro's was. But there is one major flaw in his argument. As i have stated in my first argument i said if the cup were to be filled 50% it was full, but if it was from 100% and drank from till 50% then it was half empty. And here my opponent agrees with me with his "household experiments". "*No one specified that a cup must be in a neutral position so if I was drinking a 100% filled cup,and at the exact 50% hell froze over, did I mention I'm in hell, than the cup would be half empty. This is how I conclude the cup is half empty." And since Pro had stated "when filled 50% to the top with H2O," and had agreed with me on the terms that when filled to 50% it is full. He has just self negated his own argument. Refer back to their experiment once more. That, and i will not metaphorically die alone.
The glass is half empty

Thank you for accepting con, and I will note that I am in fact a raging cynic. Just to let you know. LET THE SEMANTICS COMMENCE! //Since Pro has stated that a cup was filled 50% to the top, but not poured 50% full. Let me elaborate. If one were to fill a cup 50% the cup should be half full. But if one were to pour 50% out of a full cup then it should be half empty.// I will retort with fun facts *All full glasses are filled at some point. * the definition of filled is "filled 1. Simple past tense and past particle for fill http://en.wiktionary.org...; *The definition for fill is "fill To add contents to a container... so that it is full" * So fill means something that was once filled and most if not all 50% liquid cups were once filled. * My opponent is correct when he says a cup in the process of filling is 50% full, while a cup being poured is 50% empty. I did some household experiments and found this *The most common way people empty cups of water is into there mouths in a motion called drinking. *Drinking almost indistputably takes a longer time to be poured into mouths than filled, as we human are not fish and take breaks in between gulps. *No one specified that a cup must be in a neutral position so if I was drinking a 100% filled cup,and at the exact 50% hell froze over, did I mention I'm in hell, than the cup would be half empty. This is how I conclude the cup is half empty. That and metaphorically you will die alone. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHHHAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAhAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
The glass is half empty

So what is the proposition before the gallery today? Pro believes that the glass is half empty. The majourity of people have heard this term; "the glass is half empty" or "the glass is half full". And most people believe these 2 views to be one of a pessimistic mind and a optimistic mind respectively. To avoid possible profiling i will ignore the possibility of my opponent in being a pessimistic person. And will instead talk about what he has proposed in his first argument. Since Pro has stated that a cup was filled 50% to the top, but not poured 50%, should mean it is full. Let me elaborate. If one were to fill a cup 50% the cup should be half full. But if one were to pour 50% out of a full cup ( 100% ) then it should be half empty. Pro has stated that the cup was to be filled with water. And so in this case the cup is half full. I await Pro's response to this intriguing debate.
The validity of the theory of special relativity and E=mc2 holds the key to evolution's being false

Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity generalizes Galileo's principle of relativity—that all uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames)—from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be. Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source. I say that the speed of light is not even a constant and because of this theoretical physicists are going nowhere studying it. It is common knowledge that the speed of light changes when it enters a dense material, causing refraction. So if light slows down then how can it be a constant? This is a key argument because evolutionists argue that the stars, which are believed to be millions of light years away (that is a debate for another time), took millions of years for their light to reach earth. In the Sunday Times from UK, the article "Eureka! Scientists Break Speed of Light" by Jonathan Leake, Science Editor, June 4, 2000 United States, states, "SCIENTISTS claim they have broken the ultimate speed barrier: the speed of light. In research carried out in the United States, particle physicists have shown that light pulses can be accelerated to up to 300 times their normal velocity of 186,000 miles per second." So if the speed of light is broken, how can we measure stars whose light's speed is not a constant?
This years policy topic

(Provided are tag lines, the evidence is available upon request) Inherency: (Or what is preventing the case from being being written into policy currently) Status Quo Incentives Fail New Licencing Process, but not currently being utilized Thus we present the following plan: Resolved: The United States federal government should offer businesses in the United States substantial positive financial incentives and a combined licensing process for nuclear power plants that use Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactors. Significant Harms: Phytoplankton population decline results directly from carbon based polution, and threaten extinction. Natural Gas Price Volatility kills US Econ because of gas supply short-fall Advantages Environment/Extinction- Warming is occurring now – new IPCC models, which are the most comprehensive studies done, show it is caused by humans; CO2 in oceans kills phytoplankton which is key to oxygen having massive impacts on the eco system leading to extinction; Nuclear energy is the only viable carbon and greenhouse gas free approach to base-load electricity production Solvency: Cost support and licensing is key to nuclear expansion GT-MHR is prepared for every possible accident, ever. GT-MHR Promises to be the BEST contender for Alternative Energy
This years policy topic

I would like to go on the neg against any policy kids out there, who knows, there may be some. This "speech" is just to set up rules and explain and whatnot. I am on the neg for a 5 round debate because its pretty much what policy is. Ill give this as like a wasted speech, so the aff will get first word still. Although the aff does not get the 2AR last, he gets a 3AR last... i dont get the neg block, it will just have to be dealt with I guess. So its 5 rounds, this is wasted. The aff gives a 1AC and i think there should be a CX in the comments. A small one for sure, just to keep things so that everyone understands whats going on and what not. Then the 1NC, 2AC, 2NC, 1AR, 1NR, 2AR, 2NR, then the aff gets a 3AR... Cards- Post the Tag- Site- and a sentence or two that really sum up the tag. Im sure i have access to the evidence, I just need to see the name date and website (in case i really dont have it) So itll look like Heg good- Kalilizad 95 "Prevents 9 scenerios for war..." Something like that, im sure not too many problems will arise with evidence. Im pretty sure Im going to be running a K out of the 1NC, just make sure you know how to debate framework and whatnot. Other than that I think everything is good. CX in comments, make sure to check up on that. I am looking foward to your 1AC!
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

It has been brought to my attention that my tone was demeaning. I apologize if my tone was overly condescending. The reason I made the joke in the last round about my opponent's prefrontal cortex is because it's literally the mirror of his own arguments, just turned on him. If you're offended by my joke, then you should also be offended by his entire case to the extent that a non-fully developed prefrontal cortex is a sufficient justification for denying people's autonomy. But, as per the structure of this debate I will not post arguments in this round. Peace and Love, YYW
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.

Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices.Definitions:Adolescent: "the period of life from puberty to maturity terminating legally at the age of majority"(1)Autonomous: "existing or acting separately from other things or people"(2)Round one for pro is acceptance and opening argument.Pro will waive last round.Comment if you are interested.(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The age that people have the right to vote should be lowered to 16 and not stay at 18

first readers i would like to point out somethings here, my opponent argued that a teen is not ready to vote because they are worried about other things like prom, however he ignored my argument of the average American in his version of unfit are unfit to vote. This point wasn't touched secondly he goes on again to say no they are to busy thinking of prom and other random things but so do college students with frat parties yet they can vote. An some adults care more about getting their crack to get high but they can vote next my opponents going to suggest drug testing before voting. If a sixteen year old can work, drive a car, and go to school then they can/ and should be able to vote like every other Americans who goes to work, drives a car, and pays taxes, and some go to school. But wait there's more homeless people can vote, ex cons can vote, scum of the earth like drug dealers and murders if they dont get caught can vote ( you can't vote in jail). yet a simple 16 year old apperently can't comprehend simple economics, as well as my argument that politicians could lie to get voted in and this happens now with 18 to 90 year old people now whats reducing it to 16 gonna do? nothing might even help give teens a reason to vote in the future because rock the vote isn't exactly working. There is no mental difference between a 16 year old to an 18 year old both can form opinions on matters like abortion and how the economy should be handled, my opponent didn't argue this that teenagers can't form their own belief system and platform. The truth is they can and should have the right to vote.
The age that people have the right to vote should be lowered to 16 and not stay at 18

On average a 16 year old are worrying about a lot of different things like their school dance and what not. Most average teenagers might be able to handle a paying job and taking care of their cars, helping their families and worrying about their school work, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would be able to handle voting with all the older part of society. When we are younger we have different things running through our heads and might think we know what is important but in reality we don't have any idea. Most 16 year old lack the competence or the required skills or knowledge one most know before approaching the ballet box. Most of the time we have to know to research and know what we are talking about before we said anything about it. Yes at 16 they are driving, working and helping their families make due with food and money. But voting is a totally different thing. When you are voting you have to know who you are reading about and what they can bring to the table you have to understand what they are talking about. You have to be well informed about the topics and the people that getting talked about. We may never know what is what. As said by Former President Kennedy The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. One single vote could make the economy worse then it was to begin with. Henry David Thoreau also stated that All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong. i now turn it over to my oppent