BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Using drugs or alcohol while preganant is child endangerment

Two rounds left. I've been thinking that debate is not right for me. I was looking for a place to discuss ideas and global issues, but debate is...not that. It's a whole other monster that I thought I would like, but I really don't. I'm glad I decided not to go to law school. Not that I thought being a lawyer would be anything like debating. I've been a stay-at-home-mom for 8 months now, and it's certainly the hardest job I've ever had, but I think that's just because of the hours. If I could be a mom 40 or even 80 hours a week, I bet I would be a lot better at it, but there's no downtime for parents. If we aren't on active duty, we are on-call. There are no breaks. It could be that my husband and suck at co-parenting, but that's a whole other problem. My point is that being a parent is crazy hard. The physical and emotional demands are so much more stressful than I ever expected. My kid is 2.5 years old and still doesn't sleep through the night. I'm exhausted.
Using drugs or alcohol while preganant is child endangerment

I regret making this debate 5 rounds instead of 3. I guess there is no way to change it now. Oh well, I guess I might as well finish my argument. Not only did these women break the law by using illegal drugs, they also knowingly put their unborn children at risk of permanent damage or death. This is not the behavior of a good or even acceptable future parent. Taking care of a newborn is really hard. I'm sure it's even hard when one is also struggling with drug addiction. Harder still is taking care of a new born with Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) while struggling with addiction. In order to keep infants and children safe, we have to protect fetuses, too.
Using drugs or alcohol while preganant is child endangerment

I understand that drug addiction is not a choice, and it should be treated as a mental illness, but having a baby is a choice. No one is forcing these women to complete their pregnancies. Abortion is an option and is certainly a good thing for pregnant women who are unable or unwilling to stop using drugs that are known to be harmful to fetuses. Miscarriages happen. I get that. And spontaneous or elected abortion should not be illegal. So in that sense, I agree that Amanda Kimbrough should not be responsible for her son's death, only his life. However, if a women is using drugs while she knows she is pregnant, it is very likely that she will continue using drugs after the baby is born and in her custody. We all want babies to be with their loving, caring mothers. We all want that, but here's the thing: for most women, pregnancy is the easiest part of raising a child. Infants are much harder to take care of than fetuses and drug-addicted babies are infinitely harder still.
Writing challenge Exercise: 600 Words or less

How does one define art? Paintings, music, even cooking comes to mind. But is at limited to those few things? Art is someone's creation that is pleasant to one or even more of the senses. Sometimes these arts can have a negative reaction, but regardless, it is art. My art is brewing beer. How does one get in to such an art? Many reasons. It's something mom or dad passed it down. You looked online and Google, searched "how to make beer". Most people would click the first thing they find and buy the ingredients or buy a kit for beginners. You'd set aside a whole day to do it, and let's face it, it does take all day. The familiar smell of beer fills the kitchen- well, right now it's your brewery and you'll be damned if the misses thinks she's throwing dinner in the oven. You have some spills and you let it sit for maybe a 3 weeks. Painful, isn't it? It's time to bottle. You're so afraid to taste it. 3 weeks and 30 dollars wasted is what's on the mind. You bottle and hope for the best next week. When my Uncle Joe said it tasted like Samuel Adams Summer Ale... wow is all that through the mind. "Time to open up a brewery" is the first thought that runs through the mind. And that's probably the way many breweries opened. So sit back, relax and take a nice sip of the art presented to you. Isn't it so beautiful?
Writing challenge Exercise: 600 Words or less

In heavy summer heat, mud dries quickly on stained jeans and on the one wheel as it rolls forward rumbling down compacted gravel. And there’s only one way, one way out of the place, past the chain-linked fences bearing barbwire at the top, past the two men built with brick arms bearing holstered weapons hanging beside their big black belts. During the day in the small building, the security guards mimicking motion, pantomiming for a camera whose feed is fed into a small television, a television secretaries watch in boredom, a television the boss stares at in the afternoon while drinking cheap whiskey. Today, they are rough, throwing the contents of pockets in the dirt, as their eyes grow animated with petty pleasure. I am next. Larry, the man ahead bends, his entire spine pops from picking up coins and crumbled bills from the ground, now whispering softly to himself, imagining murdering them for his own pleasure. They glare. What is underneath the blue tarp of the wheelbarrow? Are they going to catch someone today, finally? That’s exactly what they want. Bret is the name etched on the security nametag. He is the one approaching. Bret was a former state trooper. He has a baldhead and a bear face. He shaves with a straight iron razor every morning. His eyes are testosterone glazed and animated, revealing an ugliness, ugliness that overpowers and seems to invite certain men to become police officers and security guards, a cultivated ugliness that eats and consumes. Bret jerks the plastic tarp quickly, with the energy of a magician revealing a trick, just hoping to make a discovery of stolen goods. But there is nothing in the bed of the wheelbarrow. They check pockets, press against every inch of fabric but nothing just like the bed of the wheelbarrow. There is silence, stares looking for unconscious clues. “Good…you’re done,” Bret says, in a disappointment voice, a deflated hope of a fight. Spirals of curling smoke wafted above Larry’s old wrinkled face. He took a final long drag the smoke tunneling out through his nostrils. He dropped butt on the cracked concrete, his boot killing the dull flame before finally rolling into a patch of dead yellow grass next to overgrown weeds and empty bottles partially filled with tobacco spit. Larry has a large truck with a large bed and right now, he is standing next to it, grinning. He starts to chuckle, then it transforms into the laugh that is hard and heavy, the sort of laugh where he coughs if it goes on too long. “Thank God, for idiots,” Larry says. I grin in agreement. They were idiots. We’d been stealing wheelbarrows for weeks.
Writing challenge Exercise: 600 Words or less

Okay, so I recently someone gave me this writing book. And I knew I wouldn’t complete any of the exercises unless I did had some kind of set deadline. This is where DDO comes into play. This may be a little unorthodox but I figure that surely someone on here would want to participate. So here is the first exercise from a book entitled: The 3 a. m. Epiphany: Writing challenge Exercise: 600 Words or less __________________________________________________________________ “Write a first person story in which you use the first-person pronoun (I or me) only two times—but keep the (I) somehow important to the narrative you’re constructing. The point of this exercise is to imagine a narrator who is less interested in himself than in what he is observing. You can make your narrator someone who sees an interesting event in which he is not necessarily a participant. Or you can make him self-effacing, yet a major participant in the events related. It is very important in this exercise to make sure your reader is not surprised, forty or fifty words into the piece, to realize that this is a first-person narration. Show us quickly who is observing the scene. ” __________________________________________________________________ So, this is the only way I can motivate myself to complete this book of exercises, by turning it into a competition.
Changing gas prices accordingly to citizen travel frequency

As I stated earlier, the fact that gas has an inelastic demand-- due to the fact that people have gas money saved for gas-- rejects my opponents statement (it rejects it NOT proving it wrong) when he claimed "its not reasonable to assume the price for gasoline to stay high during the winter". Con, is basing this off of the law of demand which is understandable. But, since this topic is about gas regulation, I say a regulation should be made as to where gas stations would make the most out of what they supply. Even if gas, is just a portion of what a station makes, it is still money. ----But let me make things clear and simple on my point, regarding Con's response.Since I said in the beginning of this argument that I was not sure whether or not gas should increase/decrease during seasonal changes, I only announced that the gas should be "regulated". I did not make a specific statement as to an increase/decrease should be made only until my second argument.I am not assuming that price will increase in the winter. I as a matter of fact I understand that this is in violation of the law of demand. But since I am not assuming, I am stating that gas should be regulated in the winter as to where stations would make more profit. In other words, gas should stay relatively high in the winter.Con is simply misunderstanding my point of view.----Respectively to the law of demand, a gas station have to regulate their prices according to how likely it is for drivers to travel. If the price decreases it is likely that people will visit a station with relatively low prices and turn away from the high prices. But since both Con and I presume that it is less likely for drivers to visit gas stations in the winter than in the summer, its safe to presume that other products provided from the gas station wont be purchased as well. Hence, gas stations are not making profit from their gas/products in the winter, as much as they would be in the summer, thus they must compensate for a loss of money during that season when it is likely where people will drive more often: the summer season. So Con is wrong when he states "compensation is not an issue".So virtually, a gas station will lose money in the winter relative to the summer. So to compensate, prices of gas (and products) is likely to increase during the summer-- respecting the law of demand and for the need to compensate.If we want to include the competition of gas companies then the law of demand would have more consideration. But in general--not specifically one gas station-- gas prices must be regulated according to my said arguments.Reviewing the argument, I have concluded with my final statement for round 3. Gas prices must be regulated during the winter as to where gas stations would make the most profit out of what they can. Ideally, it should either stay relatively high or the same in comparison to gas prices in the summer. Due to the fact that drivers save/use "gas money", the demand for gas is inelastic, therefore, it is more influenced on the convenience of a driver and less influenced on the price.
Changing gas prices accordingly to citizen travel frequency

I have said before that "I am not certain whether or not the price should increase or decrease on the matter", however given Con's response and citations, I believe I have met a certainty. Having seasonal gas changes occurring already, it may seem that my side of his debate/discussion may come to a closure. However, since " less people travel in the winter ... the [gas prices goes] down", this will only result with the government or gas companies earning less profit. Considering the law of demand (as price increases the demand decreases, the inverse relationship of the demand curve) it is most reasonable for gas prices to not decrease in the winter but to actually stay relatively high. Since individuals do not make mends of their usual driving habits during the winter it is less likely for gas stations to have any customers;the demand of gas decreases during the winter, hence less profit is made. Eventually gas stations have to compensate for the loss of profit. Also, the amount of gas purchase varies widely. Since an individuals purchasing power is effected by the income effect (the more money one has the more likely they're to purchase) people aren't going to purchase a full-tank every visit they make to a gas station, rather they only spend what they can. Every person has a portion of their income disregarded for gasoline. It is widely known as "gas-money". Nevertheless, having purchasing power vary from person to person, the amount of gas money saved for gas will do likewise, hence the amount of gas purchased is varied widely. Since for a majority of the United States uses this "gas-money" managing system, only a set price of their income is used to pay for their usual gas purchases. This automatically rules out the elasticity of gas's demand since people are willing to pay what is most reasonable for their wallet, not for their tank (which is a full tank). For example, I go to the gas station during the summer and have 20$ of gas money saved for about 3.40$per-gallon giving me about 5.8 gallons of gas. The gas station has made 20$ dollars and has given 5.8 gallons of gas of which they have to make compensations for to restore those 6 gallons. Those compensations cost money as well. With that being said, if I were to revisit the gas station during the winter and the prices decreased to 3$per-gallon (respectively to the law of demand), and I use the same amount of money to purchase I will end up with 6.66 gallons of gas. In other words, the gas station will eventually have to make more costly compensations to restore more amounts of what is supplied. Now if the prices increased during winter, the gas station will have more profit, not necessarily negating the need to compensate, but will make it ever so slightly less costly for them. And who knows what compensation must be made. Higher prices during the summer when traveling is relatively frequent? A increase on your bag of chips or french vanilla gas stations sell? Oh sweet mother of god! http://www.investopedia.com...
Changing gas prices accordingly to citizen travel frequency

I would first like to say that burden of proof is on Pro to show that "the government should regulate gas prices accordingly to citizen seasonal travels" (this is the resolution Pro is arguing in his introduction, so this is the resolution that will be argued). That is to say, all I need to do to win this debate is show that gas prices should not be regulated by the government according to citizen seasonal travels. I would like the readers to make note that the key phrase in the resolution is "the government should regulate. " The debate, as it is being argued, is whether or not the the government should regulate gas prices according to citizen seasonal travels. Refutations: "It seems silly to keep the gas prices at a set price when the majority of the country is not attending their usual driving habits. " Gas prices are not kept at a set price. In fact, they can change drastically from one day to the next. That is because they are set by supply and demand (1), which is constantly changing according to consumption, and will be explained further in the case for con. I will explain in the case for con that gas prices change according to the "usual driving habits" of the majority of the country. Case for Con It is not necessary to regulate to achieve that goal Economics is the study of how to allocate scarce resources to satisfy unlimited wants. As a resource, there is only a limited amount of oil that can be produced per day. Since there is only a limited amount, as more is demanded, the producers are able to raise prices and still sell all of their product, so they do. As less is demanded, producers must lower their prices in order to sell all of their product (2). So essentially, as more gas is needed for summer travels, more gas is demanded, which means that price goes up, and as less people travel in the winter relative to the summer, less gas is demanded, forcing the price down. This all means that price for gas is already changing according to citizen seasonal travels as proven by the basic laws of supply and demand. This is all possible without including census questions, as supply and demand set price simply by how much is purchased and how much is available. Since price is already changing according to seasonal travels, regulation is not necessary to make the price of gas responsive to citizen seasonal travels, so the government should not put in place regulations to change the price of gas according to citizen seasonal travels as the changes are already happening. I look forward to my opponent's response. 1. . http://www.investopedia.com...2. . http://www.investopedia.com...
Changing gas prices accordingly to citizen travel frequency

It is clearly obvious that there is a commonplace issue with gas prices. Undoubtedly, drivers are always unsettled to the price per-gallon of gas they have to pay when stopping to refuel. For this reason there is controversy over gas price regulation. However, gas prices should be regulated accordingly to citizen seasonal travels.Let us say that we have gas prices decreased during the most obvious vaccination seasons, like summer. During the summer, average Americans go on tours and vacate long distances. For this reason, it should reasonable as to why a gas price should be changed accordingly. I am not certain whether or not the price should increase or decrease on the matter, but I am stating that the prices must be changed according to citizen travels. Determining whether a person travels/vacates is easy. There is something called the census. Using the census he government can ask questions like, "do you travel", "how often do you travel", "do you make seasonal travels", "how far are your vacations", and so forth.It seems silly to keep the gas prices at a set price when the majority of the country is not attending their usual driving habits. For example, under harsh seasonal storms/weather, it is unlikely that people will regularly perform their driving habits. Therefore, having a set gas price during a season like winter-- where weather is very harsh in some northern states-- seems silly.There are indeed other variables that effect gas prices, and I acknowledge that I did not mention those in this argument, however, the extensiveness of my reasoning is rather limited on this economic matter. Therefore, I do not condone other ideas under this case, but I am rather more accepting. After all, I have not mentioned an opposition on my side yet.Nevertheless, my final statement is that the government should regulate gas prices accordingly to citizen seasonal travels.
Global Warming will not destroy Earth, and should not be so quickly acted against.

Alright. I'm going to start by wishing whoever my opponent may be, good luck. There are many reasons Global Warming should not be so quickly acted against. The main base of my argument will beneficial. Yes, that does sound a bit crazy, but allow me to explain. The last time a warming of the Earth's climate happened was around the Medieval times. This is also known as the Little Climate Optimum. Here, the world was much warmer, and civilizations thrived. Winters were shorter, and less harsh. Populations grew, because there was less starvation and disease. The spread of many deadly diseases were slowed, because many were not huddled in shelters for warmth. And many studies show that, as far fetched as it may seem, CO2 levels were higher during the Little Climate Optimum than they are now. With or without that fact, there plants use CO2 as a fertilizer. To prove this, the purpose of greenhouses is to increase the levels of CO2 for the plant's benefit. Other studies show that the temperature started to go up in the 40's, long before man put much CO2 into the atmosphere. I would be willing to cite my sources if the need arises. Prove me wrong.
Resolved: Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions should be banned in the US.

"Throughout history a country is usually deemed as "evil" or "unjust" by the deaths of which they cause." I love the word Evil. It's a powerful word which conjures a multitude of imagery and innuendo. I ask the readers to evaluate this definition of Evil: An Evil person is one who is callously indifferent to the well being or suffering of others. He/She is self interested in the extreme and will pursue their self interest even at the extreme pain and suffering of others. He/She is utterly bereft of compassion, even when it comes to individuals to those they owe tremendous obligations. Why should Unwanted Pregnancy Abortions be allowed in the United States? Because it would result in the elimination of Evil. And my opponent has already made it abundantly clear that he is an enemy of evil. What in the world is more evil than a fetus? I will accept kcirrone's position that a fetus is a life. Heck, I will even accept the position that a fetus is a HUMAN life. So What? Osama Bin Laden is an evil human life. Would you shed a tear at his execution? Just because something is "alive" does not make it sacred. And truthfully there is nothing more evil in the world than a fetus. A fetus is a living organism that has no motivation other than the parasitic taking of it's host's nutrients. It is without the slightest compassion as it selfishly wants to be born even if it has to subject its mother through excruciating, life threatening pain and agony. Nothing is more important to a fetus than it's food, and it would suck it's mother of all life if it could. If a mother wishes to allow this evil to exist, then that's certainly her right. As a merciful society, we ALLOW mothers to suffer the requisite agony and loss of life energy to create these bundles of evil, giving them the chance to even rehabilitate them into potentially productive members of society. HOWEVER as a merciful society, we MUST NOT FORCE them to undergo the birth process. It is immoral in the extreme to FORCE our women to give their life energy to the evil that is a fetus, FORCE them to undergo the pain and suffering of child birth just so a bundle of evil could be forced upon society at an adoption agency. Thank you.