BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cursive

Con, You have obviously not been able to disprove me with your arguments from this round. The intent of having brought up "messy writing" in my previous arguments, is due to, when writing in a "typing methodology" where each letter requires a space between in order to form a word, it creates a stress on the hand, increasing the time it takes to finish a world compared to someone writing cursive. In conclusion, having to constantly give space between letters decreases the amount of information that you can write in a X amount of time, therefore resulting in messy writing. So, messy writing arises NOT because of cursive. [2] Here are some benefits of cursive writing: - Writing in cursive has been shown to stimulate the brain development in areas of thinking, language and writing memory; [1] [2] - Cursive handwriting stimulates brain synapses and synchronicity between the left and right hemispheres, something absent from printing and typing; [1] - The physical act of writing in cursive leads to increased comprehension and participation; [1] [2] " Interestingly, a few years ago, the College Board found that students who wrote in cursive for the essay portion of the SAT scored slightly higher than those who printed, which experts believe is because the speed and efficiency of writing in cursive allowed the students to focus on the content of their essays." [1] [1] http://www.nytimes.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion in General

Either way it's bad to get rid of a living human that is completely innocent. It's not the baby's fault that that person messed up by having sex and getting pregnant. If that person didn't want the baby, they should've been on a type of birth control or used a condom, or even better, not had sex at all. If the baby is less developed it's the same as killing it when it more developed cuz either way it still has the same smarts and doesn't know what's going on. 1 month or 8 months, the baby is still living off of its mother. Instead of abortion, the mother can easily put the baby up for adoption when it's born, or even before if she's not ready, physically able, or not willing to take care of a baby. Letting someone else take care of him/her, is a way better choice then killing it in prelife. It doesn't even get a chance to take their first breath of fresh air or anything. A baby that has been murdered in the womb could amount to anything if given the chance to live. But how can anyone know if the mother is ignorant enough to get an abortion?
Age of consent laws should not be legal

My opponent is a 14 year old female. I am a 29 year old male. In her view, I should not go to jail, nor suffer any type of legal consequence if I have sex with her. As a grown man who is double her age- I disagree. I think it would be sick of me to have sex with someone who could be my own daughter, and I am sure her father would agree. Now that I have gotten that off of my chest, let's get to the debate. Contention #1- Age of consent laws are in place to protect the child. Let's consider the statements I made above. I was 14 in 1993. My opponent had not yet been born. At the time I had uncles, aunts, teachers, and other people in positions of authority who were both younger than I am now, and slightly older than I am now. I looked up to these people, and relied on many of them for emotional, financial, spiritual, and familial support. At that age I even looked up to the Seniors in High School, and they looked old to me. I was easily manipulated by people slightly above my age, and luckily never encountered anyone twice my age who tried to manipulate me into having sex- even if I wouldn't have felt manipulated. At the time I was also a babysitter. My neighbors trusted me with their six year old daughter, whom looked up to me as her older brother. I was a young man going through puberty, and never had any sexual attraction to anyone lower than my age range. Now, if it's ok for a 29 year old to have sex with a 14 year old, is it also ok for a 14 year old to have sex with a six year old? I am sure that question just filled my opponent with repugnance... or at least I hope it did. Age of consent laws protect younger minds and bodies from the manipulative, impulsive, and much more sexual mental acuity of those who are older. Contention #2- Age of consent laws are based on precedence. Many children have suffered sexual abuse. We often hear stories of children who innocently took part in what they thought were "games", only to later find out they were molested by a person they trusted... like a priest, an uncle, or a teacher. Without age of consent laws, what would deter pedophiles from having their way with unsuspecting children? Contention #3- Without age of consent laws, where do we draw the line? I gave the example of my opponent- who is a 14 year old female. What if she were 12? What if she were 10? What if she were 4? Where do we draw the line? I will allow my opponent to respond...
Age of consent laws should not be legal

I'm doing this because im doing a persuasive essay. Someone please help me i have good points. I think the age of consent laws should not be legal because people are going to do it anyway even if its illegal to do. For example if a 18 year old is dating a 14 year old before or even after he turns 18 and they feel that strongly for each other they are going to have sex if its what they want to do and legally right now in California it is illegal and would justify in a misdemeanor which would exempt the 18 year old from doing certain things but they are still going to do it because they want to its a rebellious teenager thing. My opinion is they laws should not exist they just make us want to do it more.
Resolved: If you say "pretty please with a cherry on top" you can get anything you want.

Alas! The challenge hath been answered! I call upon Hor, god of political trickery to assist me in my battle against this here fool! His name shall be smitten! Now, enough with the jib-jab. I will be presenting a logical argument for my position. Necessity of ice cream: P1: Desert is subjectively awesome. P2: Ice cream is subjectively the best desert there is. P3: Subjectivity can be objective if the subject formulating the opinion is based in truth. P4: I am the prophet of Morgan Freeman who always speaks truth. P5: Points 1 and 2 are my opinion. C: Ice cream is the best desert. Necessity of cherries: P1: The best desert in existence necessarily exists. P2: Cherries necessarily top ice cream. C: Cherries are necessary for the best desert in existence. Desert's command on the issue: P1: The best desert is necessary for prettiness. P2: Please falls under the category of desert. C: Cherries are necessary for the existence of please. Necessity of fulfillment P1: People say please to politely ask for something. P2: People should accept polite requests. P3: Hypothetically everything that should happen must happen. C: Saying "pretty please with a cherry on top" is necessary for acceptance and must always be accepted. I look forward to my opponents arguments in the following rounds :D
Resolved: If you say "pretty please with a cherry on top" you can get anything you want.

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for agreeing to debate this with me. I'd also like to point out that I did troll the first round as there are only three rounds, not four. Now, moving onto explaining why I won this debate. My opponent hasn't adequately refuted my argument from ontology. Since dessert exists, the best dessert must exist by necessity. In order to figure out which dessert it is, we need to ask the voice of truth. Here's where my opponent really gets it wrong:My opponent has attempted to shame the glorious name of Morgan Freeman and deny the fact that I am one of his prophets. That face says it all. Now that we know beyond a reasonable doubt that ice cream is the best dessert there is, and it is necessary for existence. Now since all ice cream comes with a cherry on top (whether you ask for one or not), we must conclude that cherries are necessary for ice cream. Now that we know beyond a reasonable doubt that both of these are necessary we must begin to look at the implications of the please. My opponent dropped my argument of the greatest dessert's necessity to pretty and please, therefore we must assume it's truth. Now that we know this, we must come to the realization that every must is being worked out in the grand scheme of the universe. All "musts" will happen. Now that we know that, it is easy to conclude that when you asked for something "pretty please with a cherry on top" your wish will be met. My opponent has brought no actual examples where the premise is false. His criterion of disagreement is therefore unsupported. It would also be unfair if he brought up new arguments in the last round. With that I conclude.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

capacity for self restraint isn't determined by age. statisticually, age matters. there might be some starllar fifteen year olds, very mature. but they are the outlier. we need a common baseline, and eighteen isn't good enough. the lower the drinking age, the more drunk driving accidents happen. that's a fact. con argues there would be less risky behavior with legalization. that is true to some extent. but it's overbalanced by the fact that legalized drinking leads to drunk driving and more deaths.again, that's a fact. the lower the age permitted to drink, the higher share of drunk driving occurs. and deaths. bottomline. In fatal crashes in 2011, the highest percentage of drunk drivers was for drivers ages 21 to 24 (32 percent), followed by ages 25 to 34 (30 percent) and 35 to 44 (24 percent). - See more at: http://www.madd.org... Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for young people ages 15-20. In 2008, 5,864 young people ages 15-20 died in motor vehicle crashes. Alcohol was involved in 31 percent of these deaths and 25 percent of these drivers were legally drunk at the time of the crash.1 Kids who start drinking young are seven times more likely to be in an alcohol-related crash. - See more at: http://www.madd.org... Car crashes are the leading cause of death for teens, and about a quarter of those crashes involve an underage drinking driver. - See more at: http://www.madd.org... Teen alcohol use kills 4,700 people each year - that"s more than all illegal drugs combined. - See more at: http://www.madd.org...
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

pro isn't really presenting any stellar arguments, she's just arguing that it should be all or nothing. much like hte military age, if you are old enough for one you are old enough for the other. and con doesn't really negate that the younger you are the more likely you are in be involved in a fatal crash due to alsochol. i'd personally keep adult in cout and voting and smoking, but drining and military for 21. those life and death decisions are not ready by 18. and if one is forced to say either or, i'd say make it all 21 with all these points. i don't see why we can't ease kids into adulthood though the way i describe. at best con can show 'the kids will want to run wild some, might as well get it out of thier system soone thn later' the problem, though is that more car fatalities happen the younger we go with drinking. the bottomline is even if they are going to want to sow wild oats, being more mature when they are getting to that point will only help. con says young people will drink anyways. yes, but not as much if it's illegal.and that means less fatalities.
the drinking age should not be lowered to 18

a very common argument in favor of lowering it, is that if you are old enough to serve in the military you should be old enough to drink. i can see the logic that the two should go together, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the age should be lowered. more like, the age to enlist should be raised. many if not most who join the military are being taken advantage of due to their youthful naivette and lack of options. if they required the age be later, maturity would deter many. (among other committments they make, sure). also, at that age, ddeaths and harm is extremely common due to these folks. as the age raises w maturity, the problems decrease. basically, at the age of 18 most kids are mature enough.
Abortion should be legal

Abortion should not be allowed, why you may ask that the fetus my be a incomplete human being its still a human being. Definitions: Fetus- an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal Just because it been born doesn't mean it is not alive, in this sense abortion is murder; this is because its kill the unborn child. Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life . No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different. For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence. Rape victims can always look to adoption, the child should not punished the rapist should. By allowing abortion we are allowing the killing of unborn children, and is immoral to kill therefore it is immoral. furthermore murder is a crime, abortion is not any different, if we can punish a murder who kills a pregnant women with two counts of murder then abortion is the same as murder.
Abortion should be legal

This has been an enjoyable debate although because of several factors I couldn't do my best. 1.Argument of potentiality My opponent has successfully proved that sperm by itself isn't a potential. 2.Abortion happens naturally This hasn't been addressed 3.Brian Elroy points This hasn't been addressed 4.Sacrifice The government in the west runs by the people and for the people. Hence the law should change accordingly to the consensus.Otherwise we're not a democratic nation anymore. Since abortion is widely approved, I believe that it should be legal in whatever countries more people say yes to abortion. 5.Pregnant mothers murder There seems to be an error because you didn't finish the sentence nor did you make a valid argument.However this is rather irrelevant to begin with since we're not debating whatever law is consistent or not. 6.Religion Indeed my opponent is right concerning this. Extra arguments: 1.Abortion is practiced even if its illegal.According to Planned Parenthood, "In 1972 there were 1,000,000 illegal abortions and 5,000 to 10,000 women died from them." When Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 (a year after the above-mentioned statistic), deaths from abortion drastically dropped. This is supported by the National Center for Health Statistics' own statistics. 2.Law doesn't make something right so if abortion is wrong then it still has to be legal because this is a democratic nation hence we have to follow the consensus. However I dont think that abortion is wrong. 3.The government has no right to enforce an opinion on its people if most or even many people disagree. Even if it was a fact the government is allowed to pass a law which contradicts the consensus or even the near majority (unless the near majority is willing to obey) I await my opponents response
Abortion should be legal

1:The other claim often made is that of potentiality. An embryo has the potential to become human, therefore it should be granted rights based on potential possible future probabilities. If that was the standard, then by the same definition every male sperm is a potential human being and government laws should be passed to prevent male masturbation... because in doing so one is causing a holocaust of potential human beings. Objection!-- Ok looking at this I will explain my argument of why abortion is in fact murder, this potentiality of human being now I will explain how the masturbation is a false statement. One, without the sperm and the egg fusing there is no potential human as long as there is conception then there is that potential because sperm isn't going to grow a baby it self it needs both once it is in the embryo then its truly potential. sperm by its self cannot be considered a potential because by itself is has to potential value of 0 making it not a potential at all. 2Why do I use the word sacrifice. Because if a women are prevented from having an abortion because of government laws, then by definition she is no longer in ownership of her own body and her right to abort an embryo or indeed a fetus, is sacrificed to government intervention. Objection!-- Ok for this I have 3 words Hobbes social contract, rights,rights,rights complain about rights all you want but according to the social contract people give up rights to be governed and must obey the laws the government ratifies , also point out that abortion or anything relating to it is not in the constitution. 3Considering what has been said, the logical conclusion is that abortion isn't murder. However the law is right when it says that if a man murders a pregnant woman then he should be charged with two murders. For the woman lost her opportunity to have a child. In this case fetus is like an unborn child which hasn't been born due to murder. However when abortion happens (naturally or not) then the fetus isn't like an unborn child hence its not a murder. Objection!-- doesn't this statement all in itself conflicts with the statement I attacked first number 1 I numbered this clearly conflicts with that statement. The aborting of fetuses as apposed to embryos, often brought up by pro-life demonstrators, is a 'red herring' argument. The fact is that most abortions are performed in the first trimester embryonic stage. When fetuses are aborted it is almost always because of a serious birth defect or because of complications that put the woman's life at risk. Objection!-- I am arguing that choice abortions should be illegal not mandatory, in this case if the mother The rest of your points were irrelevant because you mainly address religious dribble, which annoys be to no end every time I debate this that is what people argue and its insulting; Mainly because I never stated anything about religion. This is what m case is based upon and the rest of your points were irrelevant mainly because you tried to cover all points possible.
Abortion should be legal

First I will start off my saying my opponent did not address my case directly at all, there for they stand as so long I can provide why abortion is murder. As my opponent hammered and yammered in his speech, and how abortion is not murder because it cannot think,feel, or communicate which the only quotes and evidence is a philosopher. Yet I will explain how abortion is in fact murder, again lets define a fetus :an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal. life: the experience of being alive A fetus is a living thing, which only possibility of becoming a human being. in recent history (the Scott Petersen case), when a pregnant woman is murdered, the laws have changed to allow the murderer to be charged with 2 counts of murder, as opposed to 1 count. Why is this? Since when did we start affording the unborn the same rights and privileges as born citizens? If this precedent is allowed to stand.why is abortion not illegal? What's the difference? If a strange man decides to kill a pregnant woman's fetus, and he can be charged with murder, why can't a doctor be charged with the same? This is because killing a fetus in the law is murder, it just so happens o abortion isn't why I have no clue its a contradiction in itself. Now let my point a question to you, before your born I poison your mother with some kinda medication that makes you not to be able to grow legs. well since you never had leg to begin with and all did was prevent you from having them I did no wrong. SO if i kill you before you get a brain then i am not committing murder great nice to know, This is pretty much the basic principle of my opponents case. killing a potential life is the same as murder, how? because a fetus will always grow to be a human nothing else , that is all its a human that will grow to be human. If i do something to make you grow into a person with no arms in legs i have done no wrong because you havnt developed it yet . THIS is what my opponent s based this on and is clearly immoral, and wrong.
Abortion should be legal

Your main argument is that Fetus has the right to life, so heres my response: Clearly, the notion that all innocent members of the species homo sapiens have a serious right to life is deeply erroneous. Unlike a normally developed adult, a human fetus is lacking attributes in several very important areas. The human fetus does not posses the same mental faculties as a full-grown adult and therefore cannot be said to posses the same serious right to life that conscious persons do. As demonstrated earlier, this moral principle can be recognized in the way humans differentiate between fully conscious adults and those that have experienced a permanent loss of consciousness due to disease or some sort of traumatic accident. And it is in this ethical purview that it is possible to recognize that a fetus does not have a serious right to life since, like a brain dead adult, it does not posses a significant mental life with thoughts and desires. This is why murdering grown adults is wrong whereas killing a fetus is not. As was argued earlier, a fetus is not a rational or conscious agent and therefore does not hold a serious right to life. The fetus may be a human (in the biological sense), but it is not a person. In her book, On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, Mary Anne Warren - an American writer and philosophy professor that taught at San Francisco State University - details five psychological criteria for personhood. According to Warren, these qualities include consciousness and in particular sentience; the capacity to reason; self-motivated activity; the capacity to communicate messages; and lastly, the presence of self-concepts.Since a fetus does not possess any of the above qualities, it can rightfully not be considered a person. Given these criteria, it logically follows that a human fetus cannot possess the same right to life that a grown adult has since it does not qualify as a person. A fetus' potential to acquire characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness is not a sound basis for granting it a right to life. While some may wish to disagree with this, it seems quite clear that potentials cannot justifiably grant something rights. As Peter Singer — the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne — points out, this principle simply cannot be adopted as a rights criterion since masturbation, contraception, and abstinence could all be equally condemned by its own standards. In fact, under this ethical framework, even refusing to be raped could be considered unethical since it denies a potential entity the ability to become a person. These are simply an odious and untenable set of conclusions that could be drawn from the notion that entities can acquire rights through undetermined potentials. Therefore, a fetus' potential to become a self-conscious person should be rejected as the foundation for granting it rights. My point is that abortion isn't murder hence abortion should be legal.