BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Williams V Walker-Thomas Furniture Co

The point being made within my standard form argument is being overlooked by you completely. While you say that it was Williams' choice to purchase the item it has no relevance to the unconscionability of the contract clause. What was meant by my premise is that, due to her financial situation Williams would not have all of the money up front for her newest purchase of the Stereo for $514.95. For this reason she went to Walker-Thomas Furniture Co in order to work out a payment plan. Within the contract itself, it states that any items not paid for in its entirety could be repossessed by the company. The purpose of this model of business that Walker-Thomas Furniture Co has taken on is to ensure that their rentals will not end up in a loss of money. In order to relinquish the chance of losing money the company itself set up a clause in order to maintain profit. Seeing as though the bargaining ability and or power of Williams in the first place was low, or non-existent, the Walker-Thomas Furniture Co could have and did take advantage of their interest capabilities. The point I was trying to stress is that the contract manages to find itself in the realm of unconscionable because of this clause. The items purchased and then paid for through a set plan would ensure a way for the Walker-Thomas Furniture Co to get its money back, but by holding the consumer to such a gross amount of interest knowing that she had limited to no options in going elsewhere to buy the stereo was something the company capitalized on. By placing such a high amount of interest on the item, the item would be paid for within weeks of the original rental time. This would mean that the company would be knowingly ripping off Williams even with the knowledge of her financial situation. If the item is paid for by interest alone it should be not be considered repossess-able. This would entail that all items purchased before 1962 or anything other than the stereo itself could not be repossessed. The remaining balance left of Williams' bill was $168 which was presumably the cost of interest left from previously purchased items. The items considered to be part of the $168 should be paid for by interest and not be repossessed.,
Williams V Walker-Thomas Furniture Co

Walker Thomas Furniture Company was a retail furniture store in the District of Columbia. The company"s business was based off a leasing model that allowed for the eventual possession of the leased item. The terms of each contract were in a written format that put forth the value of the item that was being purchased. Furthermore, conditions for the item were placed under a stipulated monthly rent payment. The contracts also provided (in substance) that the title remains in possession of the company until the total of all the monthly payments are made equal the started value of the item, in which than the title can exchange hands to the buyer. The company wanted to keep a balance due on every item until the balance due on all items was liquidated. As a result, all debt incurred at purchase was secured by the right to repossess all the items previously purchased by the same purchaser, while each new item purchased automatically became subject to a security interest stemming from previous deals. Walker Thomas Furniture was forced to implement such a plan, as the store not only had to account for potential losses but also realize that items always depreciate in a rent business. In Williams v. Walker, the contract is put into question whether or not it was unconscionable. While it was made clear Williams" income, a long line of previous payment history defeats this notion of unsconscionability. 1) Williams made her own decision to deal with Walker-Thomas, hand was never forced. 2) The items she purchased were by choice, and not necessity. 3) Walker-Thomas operated a standard business model and had no obligation to alter terms. 4) Details of terms were written down clearly and without any evasion 5) Therefore the contract is not unconscionable.
Williams V Walker-Thomas Furniture Co

You're speaking now in regard to the stereo piece and I'm not. She might not have had the funds to pay for the stereo on its own, but she most certainly payed back the amount for the prior items through interest. It states clearly that the previous item costs summed up to $1,800 and Williams managed to pay $14,000 in interest. This is grossly unwarranted as the items bought before the stereo would have already been paid off. I'm arguing that the past items should not be repossessed not her stereo that she ever so quickly defaulted on and could not have possibly paid off its worth in interest. So again, nothing you've said here is defending the clause of the contract in which I'm calling unconscionable. The fact that you dance around the specific point I have made leads me to believe that you as well understand the clause within the contract is unconscionable. For the reasons listed above i feel as though the items possessed and paid for through interest prior to the stereo set should not be repossessed and ultimately be allowed to keep in favor of Mrs. Williams.
Williams V Walker-Thomas Furniture Co

You fail to mention the fact that these interests rates were paid over a course of years, and not within a short amount of time. This "theft" you speak of is non-existant, as Williams already had direct knowledge of the rates of interests, as she has made purchases before. She made her own decision to add on to her debt already, well aware that she did not have the means to pay for them. It is not Walker Thomas Furniture CO. job to play detective as to how she could pay for this new item, especially because they did not force or coerce a purchase.
Queen Victoria was the most successful English Queen.

Con declines to make a list of the political powers that Queen Victoria actually had, because he knows that if he did so it would show how much power Queen Victoria actually had over her country. Queen Victoria had the power to award anybody she wished with politically important positions in her household. An example of this was after the fall of the Prime Minister Lord Melbourne of the Whigs. All of Queen Victoria's ladies in waiting were members of the whigs, so when she was forced to ask Robert Peel to make a government, he said that he could only do so if the Queen would replace her ladies in waiting with tories. In the end, Queen Victoria refused and Robert Peel could not make a government due to the political power of the whigs simply due to the number of whigs the Queen had appointed to her household. She essentially had the power to choose who the Prime Minister was, and therefore the route of the country, and it was not at all uncommon for the Queen to 'advise' her first ministers. Indeed, Queen Victoria had a lot more power than con paints, despite the fact that it was less than that of previous monarchs, it was still enough to be ascertained that she did, truly have 'real' power. The truth is, the dates you mentioned, whilst taking an awful amount of power from the monarchy, did not take it all to the point where they were politically insignificant. William IV, the predecessor to Queen Victoria, actually dismissed a government, which shows that, at least at the beginning of her reign, Queen Victoria did have enough power to be said to make a difference. Her first ministers listened to her advice and did take it on board as she was very close with many of them, most notably Lord Melbourne, her first minister. It cannot be said, in truth, that Queen Victoria did not play a large part in the successes of her country during her reign. Having said all of that, con has yet to mention, or give any reason, as to why other Queen's have been more successful than Queen Victoria.
Queen Victoria was the most successful English Queen.

A main contention I would like to bring forth when assessing whether Victoria was 'sucessful' is the fact that she held no real power in England, Scotland, India or any other territory part of the British Empire.Ever since the Magna Carta in 1215, English Monarchs have progressively lost power over 'their kingdom/Empire'.1215 - Magna carta takes away the power of the English king/queen to change taxes without consenting a council (which evolved into a parliament). The Monarch still has a lot of power at this point.1689 - English Bill of Rights, English monarchs may not make new laws, only parliament may. This is a near crippling blow to the power of the 'ruling' english monarch.[1]1721 - First Prime Minister of Britain is elected, the reigning king (and all successive monarchs including Victoria) have extremely limited powers. [2]Queen Victoria was the Queen of England from 1837 -1901 which is well over a 100 years after the de facto end of the powers of English monarchs.[3]It is absurd to call a Queen successful if she does not even rule her country. She is but a ruler in name and name only.However Queen Mary (ruled 1553 - 1558) and her successor Queen Elizabeth I (1558 - 1603) both ruled england at a time where they excercised legitimate de facto power over England i.e. before the English civil war and before the creation and enforcing of the English bill of rights.Conclusion:Queen Victoria was a ruler only in name and had very limited power over England, just like Queen Elizabeth II today (not to be confused with Elizabeth I). Queen Mary and Elizabeth I were the more sucessful than Queen Victoria simply because they had actual power.Calling Queen Victoria succesful is akin to calling someone who never drew a stick figure to be an artistic genious.Sources:[1]http://avalon.law.yale.edu...[2]https://www.gov.uk...;[3]http://www.royal.gov.uk...;
Queen Victoria was the most successful English Queen.

You're correct to assume that we're excluding Kings. To be a successful Queen you needed to excel in a number of areas. These are popularity, a great Queen needs to be loved by her people; reproduction, a great Queen needs to produce an heir so the monarchy's future and the future of the country is ensured; conquest, a great Queen needs to lead her nation to victory, or at least have a lack of military defeats, as well as expand the borders of her Empire. You may bring up any other qualifications of success you wish, but those are the ones I shall be talking about. Queen Victoria was a fantastically popular monarch for most of her reign. Unlike Queen Elizabeth I, who had a number of attempted rebellions, of which the rising of the north was the most notable, and indeed saw half of England rebel against her, and Queen Matilda, whom was actually deposed, Queen Victoria was never at any real risk of being deposed via a rebellion. She enjoyed fantastic popularity amongst the majority of her people for most of her rule. When she was crowned, especially, she rode on a wave of popularity larger than that of any other monarch at the start of their rule. It is safe to say that, of all the other historical English Queens, Queen Victoria was the most generally popular amongst her people. She also had the longest rule of any other monarch, coming into power when she was 18. Queen Victoria was incredibly fertile. She had nine children and, although she was not particularly fond of giving birth, why would she be afterall, she certainly ensured the succession by her eldest son Prince Edward after she died. Compared to many other English Queens, notably Queen Anne whom had 14 failed pregnancies, Queen Mary, who died after a phantom pregnancy, and Queen Elizabeth I (the virgin queen), who never became pregnant, she was remarkably successful in this area of her reign. Queen Victoria saw the takeover of India by England from the East India Company. She also conquered Canada and Egypt, she expanded the borders of the British Empire significantly more than any other Queen, including Queen Elizabeth II. Under Queen Victoria, the British Empire was at its largest and best. It is also important to note that Queen Victoria's reign brought the world closer together in terms of transport and communication. In 1840 the Post Office no longer required the recipient of a letter to pay for postage, thus making letter writing much more frequent. She was also very appreciative of the work of Isambard Kingdom Brunel and he did a lot of great work during her reign, including building the propeller driven steam boat in 1843, during the reign of Queen Victoria. Whilst other Queen's have seen great inventions, the magnitude of change of British life between the start and end of Queen Victoria's reign was greater than that of any other Queen, England essentially went from a farming community to an industrial power.
Queen Victoria was the most successful English Queen.

If you have further questions, ask in the comments section. I look forward to this debate. Successful may be defined in terms of popularity, victorious conquest, lack of military defeats, peacefulness, or however you decide you wish to define successful. However, you must back up your reasoning with an explanation as to how the queen is more successful in that area when compared with Queen Victoria. If you wish to read up on English Queens, here is a good starting point . http://en.wikipedia.org... but I advise you go further in your research than just Wikipedia before you start this debate. Good luck!
Queen Victoria was the most successful English Queen.

I feel that most of con's argument last round was simply repeated from his previous rounds, where he asserts that as Queen Victoria has 'no power' and therefore isn't a ruler or responsible for anything that happens in her realm. He then states: 'Yes, I now agree that Victoria had some power over the government, we must not forget that key word 'some'. It is really not disputable that Elizabeth I and Mary had more power over their country.' Earlier con was arguing that Victoria had no power over her country, now he asserts that she actually did have 'some' power over her country. I'm not going to attempt to argue that Elizabeth and Mary had the same amount of actual power as Victoria, Elizabeth and Mary certainly had more power! Which only adds strength to my argument that Queen Victoria was the most successful Queen as, despite having more power, Mary did not achieve a tenth of what Queen Victoria did, and Queen Elizabeth did not broaden England's horizons to the same extent that Queen Victoria did either. With less political power than Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, Victoria achieved not only the maintenance of the vast majority of her peoples happiness (excluding colonies), but also the survival of the monarchy in an era which could easily have seen the end of the monarchy after the dreadfully unpopular reigns of George IV and William IV. Her tactfulness and use of royal public appearances kept the public happy in a way that definitely was not seen under Queen Mary and, as can be seen by the rising of the north, not in Queen Elizabeth I reign either. The role of the Queen is constitutional, and Queen Victoria undeniably played that role incredibly well, despite her circumstance in terms of monarchical power. It should also be mentioned that the last monarch that was legally able to order the execution of somebody was actually Queen Elizabeth II, that right was only removed in 1998. So, con, we should both consider ourselves lucky. I feel I must apologise to pro, for he's right, nuclear weapons were produced in October 1952 in the UK, whereas Queen Elizabeth II was crowned on February 1952. However, the nuclear weapons program started in 1940 in the UK, thus was not really anything to do with Queen Elizabeth II, but more King George VI, whose Mother, ironically, was born in Kensington palace, the same place where Queen Victoria herself grew up. Just thought I'd throw that in there. I look forward to your reply!
On Balance, the Rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States

I will be debating against the resolution, "Resolved; on balance the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States." I mainly agree with the standards provided by my opponent, but I will stress that the "rise of China" refers not only to economic standards, but military and diplomatic/political standards as well. 1.) China's trade practices with the United States have resulted in a detrimental impact on jobs. Due to Chinese imports outweighing US exports, trade with China has resulted in a loss of nearly three million jobs between 2001 and 2010 [1], with some states, such as New Hampshire, losing over two percent of total state employment due to China [1]. It has been concluded that these lost jobs, especially in manufacturing, are almost entirely the fault of China [2], and not the US'. With this tremendous loss of jobs, it is abundantly clear that China negatively affects the economy of the US, especially in jobs. 2.) China's economic policies threaten the United States dollar. Recently, China has been buying a large amount of gold in an attempt to replace the US dollar as the world's reserve currency [3]. This, along with their goal of allowing the yuan, China's currency, to be traded freely would result in the weakening of the US dollar's dominance as the international reserve currency, making it more expensive for the US government to borrow money and to run perpetual trade and budget deficits [3]. 3.) The rise of China threatens the United States' national security. a.) Iran China has a close relation with Iran, using its powerful position in the United Nations to protect Iran from UN sanctions [4]. China is also investing in several oil programs in Iran [4], assisting Iran's economy, in turn funding programs that threaten the security of the US. This results in grave threats to the US' security and stability. b.) Cyber-attacks China currently contains several powerful telecommunications companies, which China has the means, opportunity and motive to use against the United States and commit espionage [5]. Several cyber-attacks against the United States have also been traced back to the United States [5], necessitating an urge to avoid these companies to avoid further attacks on America. Chinese actors are moving into increasingly advanced operations against specialized targets [6], which further threatens the United States' security. Since China threatens the United States economy by causing a tremendous loss of jobs as well as attempting to weaken the dollar as well as threatening national security through Iran and cyber-attacks, it is clear that the rise of China directly threatens the interests of the United States. For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution. Thank you. Sources: [1] http://www.epi.org... [2] http://www.usitc.gov... [3] http://www.aljazeera.com... [4] http://www.rand.org... [5] http://intelligence.house.gov... [6] http://www.uscc.gov...
On Balance, the Rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States

I will now demonstrate why you should cast your ballot in favor of the affirmation in this debate. My opponent talks about currency manipulation, specifically that currency manipulation keeps products cheap and that there is no correlation between unemployment and currency manipulation. Since my opponent does not cite any statistics, one cannot assume that this outweighs any of the statistics that I have cited. Thus, the judge cannot look to this refutation. My opponent's statement that China and unemployment are not connected is inaccurate; studies, such as those from the EPI [1], connect the China-US trade deficit to severe job losses. Currency manipulation plays a critical role in the amount of the deficit [1], resulting in severe negative effects to the economy. The judge cannot look to my opponent's refutations on currency manipulation; thus, my points on currency manipulation still stand. My opponent proceeds to state that because I am not providing clash, his refutations still stand. This cannot be looked to on the ballot. This completely ignores the facts that several of his rebuttals do not even address the contention I was advancing and that the other refutations are outweighed by statistics I provided. The judge cannot look to anything my opponent provides on this contention. Next, my opponent talks about Irani sanctions. My opponent's comment that I do not discuss the intent and that therefore you cannot look to China or Iran as threats is, again, inaccurate. I have shown previously that China has funded Irani weapon programs, which automatically is a threat to the United States. Not only that, but I've shown that China is threatening the United States' cyber security, which in turn threatens national security. Clearly, China is a threat. Since Iran has several weapons programs and is a well-known enemy of the United States, it is clear they are a threat as well. The judge cannot look to my opponent's points on this issue. My opponent is not able to definitely rebut my points on cyber security either; my opponent's first rebuttal is, as I've mentioned before, entirely irrelevant (no matter the US' ability to challenge China, as long as China is attacking and poses a serious threat to US security, the point stands) and his second rebuttal has no evidence or support, just the citation, "looking at the data". The judge cannot look to any of my opponent's refutations, and thus my contentions remain standing. Not only do all of my contentions stand, but all of my opponent's contentions fall as well. My opponent's economic impacts are all outweighed by the impacts I raised throughout this debate (especially dealing with the trade deficit), and since all of his contentions are centered around these impacts, all of my opponents' contentions fall. I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution, based on my demonstration that China poses and is posing a severe economic and military threat to the United States and that any benefits from China are heavily outweighed by the negative effects. Thank you. Sources: [1] http://thecontributor.com...
christianity bible is a porn bible, and it is not right.

how can the verses of christianity bible as vulgar as this? incest:genesis 19:36So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.genesis 35:22While Israel was living in that region, Reuben went in and slept with his father's concubine Bilhah, and Israel heard of it. Jacob had twelve sonsgenesis 38:16Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, "Come now, let me sleep with you." "And what will you give me to sleep with you?" she asked.samuel 13:11But when she took it to him to eat, he grabbed her and said, "Come to bed with me, my sister."samuel 16:22So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof, and he slept with his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.pornographygenesis 38:9But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother.samuel 6:20"How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, going around half-naked in full view of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!"walki with nakedisaiah 20:3Then the LORD said, "My servant Isaiah has been walking around naked and barefoot for the last three years. This is a sign--a symbol of the terrible troubles I will bring upon Egypt and Ethiopia.isaiah 20:4For the king of Assyria will take away the Egyptians and Ethiopians as prisoners. He will make them walk naked and barefoot, both young and old, their buttocks bared, to the shame of Egypt.exodus 33:23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. backparts? butt?some christians said it was about context, regardless of its context, those verses prove that your god is rude! , your god is not polite, and how can the god is not polite, your god should be polite, should not rude, its just proving that your behavior of your god is bad, and doesnt have any etiquette for this ,