BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RASING THE DRIVING AGE (to 20)

I, Con, will be stating that the driving age should not be raised to 20. The legal driving age should not be raised to 20. Just because some 16 year olds are irresponsible, that doesn't mean that all of them are. And, If a young person's mother has multiple children then the oldest may need to help get his siblings to sports and other extracurricular activities. In addition, an average 30 year old has the same amount of likely hood to crash as a teen. I know a 15 year old kid who is home schooled and wakes up at 5:00 AM and goes to work (manual labor) for three hours and then goes to his morning workout for two hours, and does school for the rest of the day. And obviously, most teens are not capable of this, it just proves that not all tens are good for nothing. A teen can also be just careful as an adult and just as observant.
The IPad is completely USELESS!!

I would like to discredit TrashCanMan's previous argument by saying that we are arguing that the Ipad is practically useless, not whether the Kindle is a better substitute. He also provides no evidence nor knowledge to just how easy or difficult it is to "hack your kindle". Although some might not use their "clock radio", some will not buy alarm clocks if there isn't a radio attached. Even though some things might seem unimportant to you, other demographics might really enjoy that feature. Apple took this into consideration and created a generally well rounded and diverse product. It serves many practical purposes and functions on many different levels higher than the ipod touch. The IPod and the IPad are two separate products so let's judge them separately. I end my argument stating that the IPad might not be for everyone, but it is hardly useless.
The IPad is completely USELESS!!

Pehraps some people might use an IPad to read books and stuff. But why not use a Kindle? Its a lot cheaper and it doesn't have the distraction of games or music. AND if you wanted games or music, you could probably hack your kindle so that youd have the exact same stuff. Also, sometimes a simple alarm clock is nice. Too many bells and whistles can be confusing and never be used in the first place. My alarm clock has a radio and I NEVER use it. I conclude my argument by saying that the IPad is practically useless because it serves no purpose not already performed by a cheaper product.
The IPad is completely USELESS!!

The new definition is that IPads provides no Practical purpose. Now that you are an "expert", can I ask what you did with your Aunt's IPad? Did you use one of its hundreds (perhaps thousands) of business apps? Did you use the easy Internet surfing interface? or did you just complain as you clumsily plucked at the keyboard? I ask because saying that the IPad has no practical purpose is completely ignorant. Although hardly conventional, the IPad functions for many as both an entertainment device and as an educational/productive device. Many schools are attempting to see how well students can learn their textbooks on the IPad. I (personally) am excited to see this Ender's Game-esque technology come to life. You make the argument that the IPad is similar to getting a larger alarm clock. Well, I agree with you except this alarm clock, you realize, has an AM/FM radio, better sound and a longer battery life. Just because something is new and strange, doesn't mean we can't embrace it.
The IPad is completely USELESS!!

As I have already stated, my aunt owns an IPad and I spent almost all of thanksgiving at her house so Im practically an expert by now. I realize that my topic was wrong and I cant seem to figure out how to change it. At any rate, I want to clarify that i meant it is practically useless. It does nothing worth doing that an ipod touch cannot already do. It would be like having an alarm clock and replacing it with an even bigger one. The second clock is just as useful as the first. They both wake you up and they both tell time. one just takes up more room.
The IPad is completely USELESS!!

Perhaps the one, biggest rule that I have discovered on Debate.Org, is that you're debate topic must be clear and objective. Most everyone on here will snatch up on your technicality immediately. I am going to start my argument by defining useless according to Dictionary.com. It says:–adjective 1. of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him. 2. without useful qualities; of no practical good: a useless person; a useless gadget. Under this definition, almost anything could be considered useful because almost anything can be used for SOMETHING. For example, the IPad could be used as a paper weight or drink coaster. Aside from the technicality, however, I would like to argue that there is a first for everything and Apple does a great job at being the pioneers of modern technology. They come up with unique and innovative products that everyone later copies. I ask, do you yourself own an IPad? or is this just a jealous hate
Mcdonalds is yummy in my tummy

There are no more rounds, This is the final round, Round 3. Now for my final rebuttals and final argument:"I used google. "You used google, But yet you did not cite the sources for your claims, From google. " You can search up for yourself. "Not how debates work my friend. Upon making a claim, One has to cite a source to support their claim. Now I will address your previous argument. Yes you did state that by definition, Yummy in my tumminess meant "being healthy, Tasting good, And being available for all", Though in the previous round, I left a source which lead to article detailing the options for healthy food, Which had tasty flavors, And that were obviously available to all. Let me place it here once more: • Hamburger• Chicken nuggets• Apple pieThese items are some choices available to all, Are tasty, And are healthy. [1]So yes, McDonalds is yummy in your tummy, The reason is because of the taste, And again, It depends on what specific menu item is ordered, Some may not be healthy, And some can be healthy, While having great taste. The (con) person used only one source for one of his claims, While I did the opposite. This concludes the debate, And I did have quite a fun time for once in a while, Thank you for creating this debate, I hope you can find alternatives besides McDonalds that may make food yummy in your tummy. The source I used in the previous round[1] https://www. Cosmopolitan. Com/uk/body/health/news/a46171/healthiest-thing-you-order-mcdonalds/
Mcdonalds is yummy in my tummy

"You say McDonalds in not yummy in your tummy because it will make you fat? Nonsense! Of course you could be happy! [1] It is not about being fat, Its about it being tasty, That is what truly makes McDonalds yummy in your tummy. You can also choose what to eat that can be healthy for you too. [2] "Well, Actually, I did state that Yummy-in-my-tumminess meant it was healthy, Tastes good, And is available to all. But since you probably didn't know this, I will let that slide. "I would wonder what source you could provide that would invalidate my claim for the fries having zero trans fat, But as for your further statements, The following is irrelevant. " I used google. Apparently on the right of the screen it showed the Mcdonalds fries stuff. You can search up for yourself. Also, Like i stated above It kind of does have relevancy. But I guess it is irrelevant because you were talking about trans fats. Next round Ill be stating more reasons Its not yummy in my tummy.
Mcdonalds is yummy in my tummy

Rebuttal 1: "Fat" argument. You say McDonalds in not yummy in your tummy because it will make you fat? Nonsense! Of course you could be happy! [1] It is not about being fat, Its about it being tasty, That is what truly makes McDonalds yummy in your tummy. You can also choose what to eat that can be healthy for you too. [2] Final Rebuttal: "Fries" argument. I would wonder what source you could provide that would invalidate my claim for the fries having zero trans fat, But as for your further statements, The following is irrelevant. Conclusion:The (con) person's arguments were poor, Mcdonalds is yummy in his tummy because of the taste, Not health concerns, Fries being non-vegan, or the fear of being overweight. Sources used[1] https://www. Independent. Co. Uk/life-style/health-and-families/overweight-fat-obese-skinny-study-bmi-university-bristol-a8127381. Html [2] https://www. Cosmopolitan. Com/uk/body/health/news/a46171/healthiest-thing-you-order-mcdonalds/
Mcdonalds is yummy in my tummy

I will be arguing that Mcdonald's IS NOT yummy in my tummy and I want to ban Mcdonalds. Pro will do the opposite, And argue that Mcdonald's IS yummy in my tummy. "Claim 1:It makes you happy. [1] When you eat Mcdonalds, The taste of the food is yummy, Therefore this is one reason why Mcdonalds is yummy in your tummy, It makes you happy. " This is an interesting claim. While yes, I do agree sometimes the taste of McDonalds and other fast foods can be rather good, It can also make you fat. Let me ask you a question, Pro. Are you happy when you are fat? I wouldn't be. Sure. It is yummy in your tummy, But when your tummy is as big as a whale, Maybe it isn't the best. Being fat also can raise a number of health concerns. Like heart disease. And obesity is a problem in America. You don't want to increase that. ~~~"Claim 2: The fries are yummy. [2] With those goodness of the crispy golden fries (which have zero trans fat), When you eat the fries, They are yummy for your tummy. " Another nice little claim. I bet this claim could correlate with the one up above. You say that it has zero trans fat. But! According to my trustworthy searching, I find out that it has 0. 1g FAT! ! How dare you! Even if it is. 1 above 0, It does not matter. Anyway, Kind of like I stated up above, These fries are NON-VEGAN! ! ! ! ! How dare Mcdonalds! If it is Non-vegan, And a vegan finds out it IS non vegan, they will freak out and go crazy! You don't want that! This might raise protests out in the streets, Full of neckbeard vegans! *shudders*. Anyway, With that aside, I rest my case. My case being, MCDONALDS IS NOT YUMMY IN MY TUMMY! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I look forward to your debate.
Mcdonalds is yummy in my tummy

Mcdonalds is yummy in your tummy. You may say "why"? Here are my reasons of why Mcdonalds is yummy in your tummy. Claim 1:It makes you happy. [1] When you eat Mcdonalds, The taste of the food is yummy, Therefore this is one reason why Mcdonalds is yummy in your tummy, It makes you happy. Claim 2: The fries are yummy. [2] With those goodness of the crispy golden fries (which have zero trans fat), When you eat the fries, They are yummy for your tummy. Conclusion:Mcdonalds is yummy in your tummy because of the taste of the food, But some are not yummy, Like fish sandwiches. [1] http://www. Amyreesanderson. Com/blog/fact-a-mcdonalds-happy-meal-will-make-you-happy/#. W1O-7dJKgnk[2] https://healthyaging. Net/books/fries-make-us-happy/
Mcdonalds is yummy in my tummy

I will be arguing that Mcdonald's IS NOT yummy in my tummy and I want to ban Mcdonalds. Pro will do the opposite, And argue that Mcdonald's IS yummy in my tummy. Yummy-in-my-tumminess. This means it tastes good, Is good for you, And is available to everyone. Even vegans. . . ~~~Reason 1:It is UNHEALTHY! As many of you may know, Mcdonalds is NOT healthy. Therefore, This makes it unyummy in my tummy. According to www. Theodysseyonline. Com/10-reasons-you-shouldnt-eat-mcdonalds Mcdonalds can make you FAT of course, Fat is the opposite of what America needs. It has fat stuff, Sugar stuff, And all that stuff. Reason 2: It is Non-Vegan! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Ok, I know you guys don't like Vegans, And I don't like them either, But blah blah, Since it is non-vegan it is not yummy in my tummy. Heres why. According to the same article I used above, It says the fries are made from an oil that is flavored with meat extract! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! How dare Mcdonalds! Anyway, Also, There is Animal Cruelty blah blah. Reason 3:Low wages! ! ! ! According to https://listovative. Com/10-reasons-why-you-should-not-eat-food-at-mcdonalds/ there are LOW WAGES! That means workers don't get much money. That also means they are poor. If these workers are poor, That might mean they could live off of welfare. And when they do that, They are sucking up YOUR MONEY! ! ! How bad is that! Also, Before you ask "How does this affect taste and yummy-in-my-tumminess? " Well, Let me answer. If you think about it, When you make low pay and can't afford much things, You might feel sad, Right? Well, If the workers are sad, That might mean they don't want to go to work, But they have to go since they need money. When they make your order, They might not care what they put on there, Since they are sad and/or deppresed. They also might make it badly, And you know that affects yummy-in-my-tumminess. That will make you not like this fast food place. Ok, Now I guess we WRAP IT UPThese are my reasons why Mcdonalds is not yummy in my tummy. I hope to see your response, Pro.
Profiling teenagers

SOME police that deal with anyone between the ages of 15-25 are treating the young adults unjustly and are expecting them to do something illegal. I, personally have been stopped and patted down while walking down the street, in a park, alone, at noon, and looking normal. The police have been doing this for years and should be penalized for such behavior. Teens already have to pay higher car insurance, pay for college, work society's worst jobs, and extracurricular activities. The last thing they want is to be harassed by police. Also, the court system will never side with a "punk teen".
Super villains would beat super heroes in a fight if all were involved at once

Thank you for your reply :) I would like to start with Batman Vs. The Joker. So we are both agreeing with the fact that between the two both Batman and The Joker have had ample opportunities to kill Batman. If most Batman villains were to work together they would have little to no problem dealing with batman. My first return is based on the Freddy side of the debate. You are right. But if there were a fight i'm sure that Superman would go out of his way to get to Freddy. As for your argument of the Human torch, Simply put in Freddy's dream land he would just put the flame out :P As for Superman I was going to say that in the case that he would not seek out Freddy, The Scarecrow could always use his fear toxin to put Superman to sleep and force him into the other reality. Although i have been corrected as Supermna is not affected by toxins/gases. http://batman.wikia.com... As for Jason Voorhees, his weakness is not water, he does not have a weakness per-say he has a fear of water but does not die from contact with it. It is also demonstrated in Friday the 13th Part VII that Jason is able to breath underwater, which is semi contradictory to Freddy Vs Jason were Freddy nearly Drowns Jason in the dream world. Though this might be apart of the fact that in that dream world Jason is transformed back into a little boy. Therefore having Aquaman fight him would not affect the outcome. http://horror-movies.wikia.com... As for my third and final villain that i would like to put forward, I will use the Superman villain, Doomsday. Who in these two first paragraphs show that he is well known as " rampaging, seemingly mindless, murdering monster who killed Superman". Rampage has Doomsday has Invulnerability probably greater than that of a normal Kryptonian; as well as Super Strength, Super Speed, and incredible leaping ability. http://superman.wikia.com... Now in conclusion as you can see from the supporting evidence Super villains/ horror movie villains and antagonists in general have an upper hand when fighting together and across universes. The full proof evidence given shows that no matter which hero fighter you show there is always a villain who can beat him/her. And as most would agree if someone/thing can kill Superman their invincible :) Thank you Con for making this an enjoyable debate :) i hope to see a good reply.
Super villains would beat super heroes in a fight if all were involved at once

First as you said "There are movies in which the hero is defeated" well yeah of course there is but there are alot more movies where the hero wins. Also for the Mortal Kombat movie yeah there is one where Shang Tsung defeats the earth realm fighter. BUT atleast to my knowledge thats the only one where the earth realm fighters lost. And for the batman series there is also alot of times where batman could of killed the joker. But its against batman's rules. Batman will not kill. Like if you have ever seen the batman movie the joker gets arrested and the batman is beating the sh*t out of him. http://answers.yahoo.com... ( i know this isnt very good proof but if you ever have seen batman you know he doesnt kill and for the part where he killed in the comic's thats considered the older version of batman) And my only point for when fighting freddy krueger is don't go into his dimension.Also Freddy Krueger is scared of fire so let the "Human Torch" fight him. And as for Jason Voorhees everyone should know that his weakness is water. Which what if he fought Aquaman i think he would lose. And to defend Aquaman his weakness is that if he stays on land to long he grows weak but batman invented a water suit which means he can stay on land as long as he wants. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Super villains would beat super heroes in a fight if all were involved at once

First off they have superman which he cant even die only get weakend by kryptonite. Besides all super hero's are made to be able to beat the super villain they have to fight against. I mean we all know the hero always win in the movies so its basically the same thing. Mostly all of the super villains have been beaten in all of the movies or comic etc. There isnt many facts i could use to prove this since its about super hero's and super villains but think about Detectives and real life criminals, the reason the world isn't completely messed up is because we have actual hero's in the real world. And thats why the jails in the U.S are overflowing.
Super villains would beat super heroes in a fight if all were involved at once

I believe that if all super villains and all super heroes were to have a fight, the super villains would win the fight. Firstly this is my first debate so take it easy on me :) Secondly i would like to define super villains as all comic/ anime related villains including all horror movie villains thus any antagonist of any Film or literary content including comics as previously stated.
Con Chooses

Good luck, this will be interesting. First thing I will say. LSD itself is not the problem. It's fine. It's the people who use it that make it dangerous. With just about every single chemical or substance that exist, there are people who use it for whatever reason they have. Also, as with everything that can be ingested be the human body, there are limits. Too much will cause serious problems or death. The problem with legalizing LSD is that people who are not educated about the drug they are taking (whether medically or for fun), they run the risk of overdosing. LSD also does not have any negative effects on people physically. This fact makes it seem like you can't die from taking a huge amount of it, if you don't already have prior knowledge about the drug. LSD is found in ergot, a fungus that grows on rye and other types of grain. This makes LSD plentiful and easier to get than other drugs people use, such as marijuana and morphine. It's a hallucinogen, meaning that people can hallucinate while on LSD. People don't feel it's effects until about 30-90 minutes or so after ingesting the drug, so it will make them think that they didn't get enough, as a result taking even more LSD and possibly overdosing in the end. LSD affects both the body and the mind, the effects usually lasting about 12 hours. Physical effects can be, but aren't limited to change in body temperature, loss of appetite, and sleeplessness. Mental effects can be hallucinations, delusions, distortions in someone's sense of time and identity, panic attacks, and severe depression or psychosis. These effects will make it more difficult to do what is normally done in someone's life, and endanger themselves and possibly other people. If LSD is legalized, it will be much easier to get to it. At this time, most people won't know exactly what LSD is. LSD will make daily life more dangerous to the user and the people around the user, since it impairs the senses and causes hallucinations, mixing up the person's sense of reality.
Con Chooses

Just going to note, this is my first argument over the web. I will stand as pro. Con can choose the topic. Rules: It cannot be a topic that is impossible to argue. No trolls. That's not gonna fly here. Cannot be anything that is gender biased, since arguments like that never seem to end. You have 8000 characters to make your argument. There are 4 rounds. (Please don't take offense to this, it's my catchphrase...) May the best douchebag win.
Common core testing does not capture the true intelligence of the person taking the test.

As Con failed to define, according to Howard Gardner who is a psychology professor at Harvard university and who has won a Nobel prize there are 9 kinds of intelligence. Gardner believes that the 9 kinds of intelligence are as follows: Verbal-linguistic intelligence Logical-mathematical intelligence Spatial-visual intelligence Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence Musical intelligences Interpersonal intelligence Intrapersonal intelligence Naturalist intelligence Existential intelligence How can a Common Core test measure alternative forms of intelligence that the student taking the test might have? The answer is simple, it does not.
Common core testing does not capture the true intelligence of the person taking the test.

As Pro failed to define what the difference between the intelligence and "true intelligence" of a Human are, one can only assume that they are one and the same. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, intelligence is as follows, "Human intelligence, mental quality that consists of the abilities to learn from experience, adapt to new situations, understand and handle abstract concepts, and use knowledge to manipulate one's environment". Therefore, with a definition to work with, Con will assert that the Common Core tests are able to measure intelligence. This definition will prove that the Test does in fact measure intelligence. It is merely not precise due to a binary result.
Common core testing does not capture the true intelligence of the person taking the test.

I think that Common Core testing can not measure the true intelligence of a child taking the test. Not every student's intelligence can be measured on paper. Students can be smart in other ways. For example, a child who has dyslexia may not perform as well on the written part of a Common Core test. This does not mean that this student is not smart in other ways such as musically gifted or a math genius. Students should be more than just a test score and I don't think that Common Core takes that all into consideration when giving a grade.
Common core testing does not capture the true intelligence of the person taking the test.

Con will reiterate, there are multiple definitions of intelligence, with all but the most ambiguous recognized as theories and therefore controversial. The common core does not test with that theory in mind because there is no garuntee as to the truth of it. Until the satisfactory empirical evidence is released that will prove the Pro's particular version of intelligence, the common core testing will be relatively unchanged due to its accuracy. As students must pass a certain standard of data manipulation, the test accurately places students at, or below, that standard for required intelligence.