BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is loosing your virginity at ages 13+ ok

Let's keep religion out of this as that is an entirely different debate and holds little to nothing to do with the legal age of consent. Unfortunately, young girls and boys, especially those under sixteen are prone to making mistakes involving sexual relations. While I am all for freedom, I believe that it is unwise to allow kids who don't have the proper education and maturity to make a decision that could lead to the creation of another life. You said before vaguely "that's why they made condoms" but a condom is only a useful means of protection if you know how to use it. You might say that this is a simple task but as many have found out the hard way, it is not. There are also consequences beyond the physical, the psychological effects of becoming intimate too early have been shown to lead to long term PTSD. I will close with that while I support the freedoms of all people to do what they choose, I think it is uninformed and ill thought out to allow kids at the age of 13 to be legally consenting persons.
Is loosing your virginity at ages 13+ ok

I some what half to agree men to some times take advantage of younger girls but as a girls we know the difference between him taking advantage of us or not sometimes we make decisions that aren't right education is a good one but at this age kids are going to experience certain things going through middle school and high school that will tempt them I think kids should be able to choose whether they want to or no it a phase we all go through sex is a natural thing god made sex even though he made it for inside of marriage what's the difference outside of marriage in one you have a long lasting relationship and the other basicly an experiment
Is loosing your virginity at ages 13+ ok

I think that the legal age of consent should be 16 as it is in most states. A child at the age of 13 is not yet ready to make decisions involving intimacy and can be taken advantage of by someone with more experience or age. I am all for education at 13 as I think ignorance is one of the main causes of problems we see with sexual relations at a young age but I do not think a 13 year old should be legally allowed to give consent.
Should High School allow boy badmiten teams

Seeing as how there are only 2 rounds, I will not post any arguments in the second round. Here we go! First of all, it's badminton* Definitions: badminton: a game played on a rectangular court by two players or two pairs of players equipped with light rackets used to volley a shuttlecock over a high net that divides the court in half. . http://dictionary.reference.com... If females is allowed to join football why wouldnt a male badmintin team be made Football and badminton are two completely different sports. Just because females are allowed to join football doesn't have any relation to why guys can't join badminton. Even then, a male badminton team can be made. All one simply has to do is get a group of guys who have an interest in badminton and you got a team right there. Then, I will show you how that has no matter in the stuff that you will see below this paragraph. The title asks whether or not high schools should have badminton teams for guys. 1. Some high schools already have guys in badminton teams. Here are a few examples of such: . http://www.maxpreps.com...-(stockton,ca)/boys-badminton/home.htm . http://www.maxpreps.com...-(rosemead,ca)/boys-badminton/home.htm . http://www.maxpreps.com...-(san-bruno,ca)/boys-badminton/home.htm . http://scores.newsday.com... There is so many more badminton teams for boys, so this already disclaims that there are no high school badminton for boys. Plus, look here: . http://en.wikipedia.org... It's a picture of a guy playing badminton. 2. There are plenty of badminton teams, a lot in fact. . http://espn.go.com... As you can see, the teams of badminton are mainly girls since this is primarily a sport for girls. But that does not mean guys can't make Badminton teams or are participating in badminton. For example, football is a sport that is primarily for boys but does not exclude girls to join. There are simply more football teams for boys than girls. There are more badminton teams for girls than boys. That simply doesn't mean that there are none as few exist. Cheer leading is another example where it is primarily for girls but there is the occasional guy who likes doing that stuff. In conclusion, there are already boy badminton teams in high schools and that boys can already participate and create their own badminton teams in high schools that allow it already.
Nov/Dec LD debate topic

Thank you for accepting my challenge, I look forward to the following debate... for clarification the rounds will go as followed as in LD style 1) Pro will present his case 2) Con will present his case 3) Pro will have their first rebuttal 4) Con will give their first rebuttal 5) Finally Pro will give their final rebuttal in which they will give a quick overview of their case and reasons why they feel they should win Please no new arguments in the Pro final rebuttal as it would be unfair considering I wouldn't be able to attack. I look forward to your debate and I wish you luck. the Pro my now present their case
Nov/Dec LD debate topic

==Introduction==I did the same topic debate a few weeks ago, so I thought I might as well try to do it again. Hopefully this will be a fun debate.==Definitions== The resolution is Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need. We must define a few words to prevent a semantic argument and since you provided none, I am obligated to do so myself.I might be going overboard on definitions, but whatever.Individual: A single human being as contrasted with a social group or institution [1]Moral: Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior [2]Obligation: The action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow) [3]Assist: to give usually supplementary support or aid to <assistedthe boy with his lessons> [4]Need: A lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful [5]==Sources==[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I will not win this debate

This resolution is an impossible resolution because of one reason. It is illogical because in order for him to win the debate, he must lose. According to the second law of logic (the law of non-contradictory), something cannot be true and not true in the same sense. For example, if I am asked the question "Are you alive?" then I cannot say yes and no speaking in the same setting and sense.If a lawyer walks up to you and says he is lying, is he telling the truth?This is an example of another illogical question, like the resolution. When we're looking at the debate, Con should win because my opponent has asked me to debate illogically which is impossible.
On balance, abortion is immoral

I am challenging triangle.128k to a debate regarding the morality of abortion. He seems quite convinced that abortion is morally justifiied, so I anticipate a lively intellectual discourse with him.Con will argue that abortion is morally justified, I will argue that it is not. The burden of proof is shared.DefinitionsAbortion: 'a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus' (1) Immoral: 'not morally good or right' (2)RulesR1: AcceptanceR2: ArgumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsNo excessive argumentation regarding semantics.Forfeiture constitutes a loss.No trolling.No personal attacks.______________________________________________________________________ (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
True Christianity is the Best thing that ever Happened

I will interpret the prompt, "True Christianity is the Best thing that ever Happened", As "Christianity is the thing that has positively affected humanity the most", Christianity referring to the religion by the same name, And a thing is a idea, Or physical object. I'm assuming that you are christian, And I would like to say I am not. I hope that the christian voters and non-christian voters out there will not be biased because of this, And honestly reply what they think is better. My first argument is so: Christianity is just a whole lot of ideas without any significant scientific strength as a theory. And before you tell me all about how this isn't an argument on science, That it's on religion, I'd like to say that I don't want to see this debate, As most threads on religion do, Turn into a debate on if christianity is true or false. If you'd like to contend my claim that it has no significant scientific strength, Provide a proof. Something with no strength as a theory, Even if it has impacted people's lies positively, Cannot be hands down the best thing that ever happened to mankind. Of course something substantial, That you could either see in your hand or that is proved should be better. Secondly, You are the one that needs to provide a proof, Not me. I'll let you off, But in science and in the real world you prove the extraordinary claim. I would say your claim is extremely extraordinary as you claim one thing, Out of a decillon or more things, Is the one that impacted the humanity the best. I'm looking forward to those refutations and arguments. Sorry for the length, I was short on time. Thanks, deathtank55555
True Christianity is the Best thing that ever Happened

It depends on what science you are talking about. If you are saying the Christians you know are anti-science because they don't believe in evolution, Well I agree with them. Evolution is not needed for science. The reason for less Christian scientists is because of what is taught in the universities. If I remember correctly the universities are not fond of Christianity or God. However, These same scientists use the science that God has placed in the world. The same goes to the ancient Chinese and Indians. I am not saying they can't be scientists, What I am saying is they use God's science. That would then lead to a discussion of whether or not the God of the Bible exists. The submarines are a scientific invention as well as nuclear bombs, But does that make those scientists evil for what they invented? As I recall Einstein helped with the atomic bomb. I want to emphasize again true Christianity. A true Christian follows the Bible and Jesus never taught about starting wars. He did encourage self-defense, But never to go to war. The Crusades were A. ) Started by Catholics, Which though you include them with all Christianity, You have to remember that the Protestants are not very happy with them since they also killed many of our spiritual forefathers. The World Wars were not started by true Christians. Actually in Germany the main ideas taught in universities were anti-God. Hitler believed in many anti-Biblical ideas and imprisoned and executed many Protestant preachers for speaking against him. Also the Crusades were dressed up like a religious effort, But really it was about a balance of power, But that is another long discussion. If you want to study about real Christianity and how it works read up on the Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists. Those are some good examples of what true Christianity looks like. Those denominations follow the Bible the closest among all "Christian" denominations.
True Christianity is the Best thing that ever Happened

I normally get some person who just insults Christianity without trying to understand it. I want say that I am a Baptist, So according to the Bible the Catholic Church is not a true Christian church. Therefore I will say that true Christianity and science go hand in hand. God established the rules of science and a Christian can enjoy the study of science more so because we praise God for everything he has shown us. Indeed the Protestant Reformation opened up science because people were allowed to read the Bible and discover some of the fundamentals of science in the Bible. Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton and Carlus Linnaeus are some examples of Protestant scientists.
US immagrant president allowication

Actually, George Washington was born in Virginia Colony, one of the original 13 colonies. (1) By that statement alone, he is not an immigrant. Also, none of the founding fathers could have been immigrants because at the time there was no America, only the American colonies. The colonies belonged to Britain and even if someone came over from Britain they wouldn't be an immigrant. So there is no comparison between the founding fathers and modern immigrants.Now onto President Obama. He is an American born citizen. In 2011, Obama released his birth certificate to the public to stifle the claims that he was born in Kenya. He was in fact born in Hawaii and Hawaii state officials authenticated his birth certificate.(2) I wouldn't believe everything his grandmother says.So I have now negated my opponent's arguments.References:1. http://millercenter.org...2. http://www.snopes.com...;
US immagrant president allowication

Here we go.... If your like most Americans, you probably have heard the requirements of being president. They are; Must be at least 35 years of age, must have lived in this country for at least 18 years, and you must be a natural born citizen. When our founding fathers created this nation, they were immigrants! Our first president, George Washington, was an immigrant. Who are we to say that modern-day immigrants can't be president. Just look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, I know at least a thousand people who would vote for him in an instant! Barak Obama, his grandmother says that he was born in Kenya! He is currently been an amazing president. If truth be told he actually was born there, would we impeach him? NO! I didn't even want him in office, but you know what? He get's the job Done.
US immagrant president allowication

Immigrant: a person who migrates to another country, usually forpermanent residence. (1)I don't think you understand what an immigrant actually is. The Founding Fathers couldnot have been immigrants because at the time America was not a sovereign state. It was a group of 13 colonies owned by the British, and since these colonies were owned by the British, any travel between these two places would not be immigration. That would be like you moving to Puerto Rico or American Samoa, both US Territories. You would still be in the same country. Also, I would like to point out that George Washington was in fact born in Virginia Colony.(2) Obama's supposed birth in Kenya is just a conspiracy theory. It has been certified by the Hawaii State Health Department.(3) Your statements of Obama's supposed success are also irrelevant as we are not arguing how accomplished Obama is but rather whether or not an immigrant should be allowed in office. I will agree that our country is a "melting pot". But that does not give immigrants the right to the presidency. The presidency requrires a person to be a native citizen for a reason. The presidency is not just some job you can give away to whoever is qualified. They need to be American in order to be the president of the United States of America. It's like you going to rule China. References:1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://sc94.ameslab.gov... 3. http://www.snopes.com...
US immagrant president allowication

My rebuddle: Actually, nine of the founding fathers were in fact immigrants. And President Barak Obama is, like the second word of this statement says, PRESIDENT! He could probably get his hands on anything if he wanted to. Think of how Nixon gt the spies for the water gate scandal, he was the PRESIDENT!, back then, almost everyone wanted to please the president and do anything at his command, even if it wasn't legal. Also, he could have paid for those officials to authenticate his birth certificate.Why would it effect anyone's love for the country. I don't think that if someone hated the country, they would work that hard to ruin America. I say that if someone has the drive to become president, they must have good intentions.Another point I would like to bring up is how some of the most powerful, influential people are or where foreigners; Albert Einstien, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Madeleine Albright, and even Ozzy Osborne! Something we today can't prevent is How america is becoming a huge melting pot, and if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Eventually we will have to realize that we will have to allocate this.We have many great would-be presidential candidates, but this amendment is standing in their way, how bout if instead of would be's, let's make them will be's.
Choose the topic

I argued that I was a Jeffereson Republican which is a type of Republican [1]. I have supported the Jerrereson Republican party for a long time and the fact that I put my political ideology as Republican is permissable since: a) JRP counts as Republican [1]b) I didn't realize that the JRP was a separate option until this debate came along and I checked again. Even if you do not buy this, you still don't vote me down because as I cannot stress enough. JRP = Reblican. I am a Jeffereson Republican which is a republican. A more informal name for my party is The Whig Party, which is a party of similar ideology and image connotation representation but is smaller [2]. The owl is the symbol of the whig party AND the JRP [1][2]. My opponent has consistently claimed that I have not fulfilled my BOP when the BOP is clearly on him. It's con's burden to prove that I am an elephant. Since I know what I am, this means that I have less to prove than con. This means that Con's the person lying. Not me as he has consistently complained about. Con has made consistent assertions throughout the debate with absoloutely NOTHING to verify this by. "While part of a group you are called what the mascot of that group is" Con. He then says when attempting to prove this: "This has no statistics to back it up, however using examples we can show this" Con. This is insufficient. Con creates examples and produces something with little - no explanation of why I should buy this and why it is true. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://conservative.wikia.com...;
Choose the topic

Last Round was a Rebuttal... No new points can be brought up, my opponent created a whole other argument. Arguing that he is a Jefferson Republican, not a Republican (there is no relationship between them [1]). Even if you do consider that piece admissible, my voters round will show why Con has won.He said "This is true but my opponent fails to acknowledge that the fact that I support a very specific part of the republican party" He didn't support the JRP at the beginning of this Debate... Plus, "There is no relationship between the JRP and the Republican Party, and the JRP is only active in Alabama, Florida, North Carolina and Tennessee." [1] So his argument is flawed because the JRP and Republicans are not related. Now, look at his sources for his last argument, He offers his profile where he says he is a Jefferson Republican (which just magically changed to fit his argument), he offers a Wikipedia link to the Democrat-Republican party (which is the predecessor of the Jefferson Republican Party) , and a Conservative Wiki link to the Whig party [2]. So what is he a Whig, a Republican, or a Democrat-Republican (Jefferson Republican)? He seems a little confused to me.Finally, my opponent just made himself a liar in this argument... He claims that he is a republican, then says he is a "Thomas Jefferson Republican" but those are descendants of the Democrat-Republican Party...But, the Owl is the symbol of the Whig party. (just look at source 3) So he says he is a republican, but he is a JRP. Whether or not Democrat-Republicans and "JRP's" are the same is questionable and does not matter, the truth is my opponent lied about what he is in his profile. Funny how he decided to change it to fit the needs of his argument. By definition, a liar is a person who speaks false statements Remember, pro always has the burden of proof if it is not defined. So, since my opponent lied in this argument, that is enough to cast a shadow of a doubt on all of his arguments. This is because we cannot prove that his statement is true or false.Thus, you must vote Con because the Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof as he may be speaking a false statement (as he did in his profile by claiming he is a Republican, not a Whig or a JRP (which was an option at the beginning) or a Democrat-Republican, or even just putting other), and he cannot prove that he is telling the truth. Thus, there is a shadow of a doubt on whether or not he is an Elephant. Thus, Con wins. This is not a new argument (I can't stress this enough), this is merely me showing why Con won, Con won because my opponent lied and because he had major flaws in his "rebuttal" (new argument), and there is no proof that he isn't lying about him being a part of the JRP (kind of suddenly, don't you think?)... It clearly said "Republican Party" on his profile (as shown in an earlier argument) and if he lied about that, there is no proof that he isn't lying about being a Jefferson Republican. Thus, Con won. [1] http://usconservatives.about.com...[2] http://conservative.wikia.com...
Choose the topic

Just before I begin I would like to apologize for the short argument. I have been extremely pressured for time however I believe that this argument is sufficient to refute my opponent's claims. My opponent claims that I am a member of the Republican party. This is true but my opponent fails to acknowledge that the fact that I support a very specific part of the republican party [2]. To be particular I support the group known as Thomas Jefferson Republicans [1] and they are represented by an OWL not an ELEPHANT. Since my whole opponent's argument rests on the fact that I am an elephant because I am a member of the reblican party, they lose this debate because my opponent generalizes what the Repulican party is and who they really are. This basically means that my opponent loses based on this short argument alone since their entire argument rests upon this sole point. My opponent does not know about me and what type of republican party that I support. Furthermore, they generalize what the Republican party is and they fail to acknowledge that it comes under many names and has many symbols depending on what part of the rebulican party you support. Vote Pro because I have proven that I am not an elephant in the following ways: I am not a literal elephant, I am not an elephant in an offensive way, I am not an elephant in a political way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3] http://conservative.wikia.com...