BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the Drinking Age Be lowered To 18

That's actually the case in some states. Also, not everyone drinks. In the your argument, by proxy, everyone can't wait to start drinking so they do it at a young age. In fact, since 1980, the amount of underage drinking has dropped down*. I think a drinking age of 21 works because it also allows for clubs and bars to manage a more socially responsible clientele. If I owned a bar or nightclub, the last thing I would want is for it to be filled with drunk teens right out of high school. An older drinking age means a higher chance that your customers are a more mature crowd. * http://www2.potsdam.edu...
Should the Drinking Age Be lowered To 18

Studies show that the human brain doesn't finish developing until the mid to late twenties*. We all know that underage drinking will occur no matter what the age limit is, but a drinking age of 21 allows young adults to adjust to life of great responsibility after turning 18, without introducing them to an inebriated that could potentially cause brain damage** and temporarily limited motor skills*** (assuming that teen drivers are three times more likley to be involved in a fatal crash than those 20 and older****). * http://www.academic.marist.edu... ** http://www.npr.org... *** http://alcoholism.about.com... **** http://www.cdc.gov...
Cars have a negative impact on this world

This is what you were waiting for; my final rebuttal to the position that cars negatively impact our world; If you remember Round 2 and the mention of road fatalities and road kill, and my suggestion to carpool in order to lower those figures, Pro didn't seem to counter my enunciation of road safety education. In fact he just brought up more details on annual road fatalities without ever addressing any possible problems with relevant education to combat those. In mention of reckless drivers, i must reveal the strawman on the part of Pro; while i did say that a big part of accidents were due to reckless driving, i did NOT say they were ALWAYS SOLELY the reckless drivers' fault; i never said those two key words ("always" or "solely"). More on train systems - schedule is in fact a big factor in the usefulness of even already-established systems; if there aren't enough trains in service or the schedule is unfavorably-timed its usefulness diminishes. I say again, that is a major reason for our inevitable need to carpool. About the emissions from automobiles, we do have a choice, though limited by budget, as to what cars we use. If we choose wisely, and indeed boycott (refuse to buy) cars we know are inefficient and pollute heavily; these sources will give you some food for thought: - . http://www.carsguide.com.au... - . http://www.cars-of-europe.com... That would compound the supplementation of positive impact from carpool. As for walking and cycling, it's no surprise that both sides agree this is necessary, but as Con i said earlier that "we as humans don't have infinite fatigue capacity"; and indeed walking and cycling expend more energy to move a person - using that person's own energy, thus adding comparatively more to his fatigue; here's a source on it: . http://www.cptips.com... Reviewing eco-friendly cars, i believe we can send a message to automotive companies everywhere with the methods we so thoroughly focused on; carpool in its result of reduced demand for automobiles, and the high selectivity in the cars we purchase meaning less money for them from the dirty ones, thereby pushing more demand for the eco-friendly caste. Though they'd cost more, it should be made up for by the money saved through the methods i initially suggested. . http://en.wikipedia.org... So, all in all, i hope my rebuttal was clear enough for you. Granted; i know it looks like i agree with Pro but i really don't.
Cars have a negative impact on this world

This is a refutations-ONLY round (but you may bring up evidence to support your refutations) : My opponent only gave one reason why cars are good, which is that if you apply the methods that he gave cars won't have such a negative impact in the future- and perhaps a positive one. The methods that he gave are carpooling, walking and cycling, Road safety awareness, and using environment friendly cars. I will refute them one by one. Carpooling- Already established train systems are better alternatives. In suburban areas walking and cycling will do the trick. After all cars still give off the same emissions. Walking and Cycling- This is what I'm suggesting. My opponent is supporting the fact that we should walk and bicycle more. These are alternatives to car driving which is what Pro is supporting. My opponent is helping and agreeing with me! Road safety awareness- He is suggesting that car accidents are always solely the driver's fault and the vehicle had nothing to do with it, but I have stated in Round 3 that 43% of car crashes are not solely the driver's fault. Eco-friendly cars- "Surprisingly, the hybrid vehicle market only makes up three percent of all cars on the road today. (1)" To answer his speech about building a railway system, I was actually referring to already-established train systems in Round 3. My opponent did not refute any of my points (not including the trains) and has helped me, in fact. The choice is simple; vote pro. Sources: 1. . http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com...
Cars have a negative impact on this world

His points are just refutations to my arguments and didn"t say anything about cars being good. I will first state my points then refute his refutations. Assertion 3:- Roadkill Cars run over animals every day. In fact road kill "is estimated to be responsible for 50% of deaths ofFlorida panthers, and is the largest factor forEuropean badgerdeaths in England. (1)" "Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People Newspaper estimated that" 41 millionsquirrels, 26 million cats, 22 millionrats, 19 millionopossums, 15 millionraccoons, 6 milliondogs, 350,000deer(1)" are killed every year. I have proven my point about cars killing animals. Refutations: Carpooling- It"s true that carpooling lessens emissions but the emissions, but electric trains are much more environment friendly. My opponent"s second point about walking and cycling helps me because that"s what I"m suggesting. This shows alternatives to the car. My opponent helped me. Reckless drivers- 43% of car crashes didn"t happen solely because of reckless drivers. Environment Friendly cars- There are not too many EF cars on the road. I have refuted my opponent"s refutations. Since he has no points of his own, vote pro. Sources: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://bigcreek.ucnrs.org...
Cars have a negative impact on this world

Here are my counterpoints: - Adoption of carpooling: it would be more than advisable if we got used to sharing rides and having the same automobile driven by several different people. I do see though, that it has the shortcoming of confusion because of the two different mechanisms of transmission, those being automatic and manual; luckily most AT cars are fitted with a "manual" option allowing the driver better (or at least more) control of the gearbox. All that though, would be way more than made up for already by the practice of carpool which would mean that due to automobiles being available for larger sections of a populace, that being a neighborhood of persons, there would be less cars on the road at a typical time, and thus less pollution thanks to this fact. - Cycling and walking: as we as humans were built to be doing, as it is said, i find we can reduce pollution by way of traveling on foot to run errands we know are walking distance away, as well as by bike if just one person is needed for a given job especially with light to no cargo. In fact, if every human made a habit of this, we'd also become a fitter global populace with a more responsible outlook with our travel habits. There are many fitness clubs around today and health education in schools generally require the topic of fitness and exercise habits so i myself don't see why that should be so big a problem. - Road safety awareness: this is a big point, knowing the casualties per year on the roads as brought up in the table by Pro; i have reason to believe that a big part of those accidents is due to heavy traffic and reckless drivers, those being generally irresponsible and uncourteous whether on highways, back streets, or freeways. It is also vital to teach youth for two to three days a week regarding road safety, and enunciate the importance of designated drivers in cases where alcohol is involved. - By doing a combination of the first two above, we would by right reduce the traffic of vehicles on the roads and so make them somewhat safer, and fulfill the goal of my third point, to improve awareness of safety and reduce other rates as those of road kill and automobile pollution. In addition, i have the extra contention that not all automobiles have those dirty fuels of diesel/gasoline, and in fact engineers are designing cleaner fuel systems as electric propulsion, or fuel cells (see articles on ctvnews.ca) and even hybrid systems. That, as any decent topic of debate, this matter is not readily clear and doesn't simply have a yes/no answer, or OK/wrong, etc.
Cars have a negative impact on this world

As with Pro i feel a few more terms need definition for Con: Carpooling - (n. & pr. prog. v.) use of the same single vehicle (usually an automobile) for mass transport. Responsible - (adj.) wise, aware, and courteous with vehicle use. Designated driver - (n.) as the word implies, the one elected to drive a group to a destination; has to be qualified and sober. Walking distance - (n.) as the word implies, a distance within a maximum in which a given individual can travel on foot to a destination with very few to no troubles. Efficiency - (n.) the ratio of the minimum energy usage per unit of fuel, compared with the actual usage. Or, a similar ratio, accounting also for fuel and distance, when transport jobs, particularly carpooling, are concerned.
Cars have a negative impact on this world

This is a debate on our everyday machine, the Automobile. Pro will be trying to prove that cars are bad. Con will try to prove that cars aren't bad and have a positive or neutral impact. Rules: 1st round: acceptance and definitions ONLY 2nd round: Arguments/contentions/points/assertions ONLY 3rd round:Arguments/contentions/points/assertions AND Rebuttal 4th round: rebuttal ONLY Definitions can also be clarified or given at any time. No foul language or personal attacks. Now that I have cleared the rules let's get down to the definitions. Particulate Matter (n.)- a small discrete mass of solid or liquid matter that remains individually dispersed in gas or liquid emissions (usually considered to be an atmospheric pollutant). Automobile (n.)- a passenger vehicle designed for operation on ordinary roads and typically having four wheel sand a gasoline or diesel internal-combustion engine. Road kill (n.)- the body of an animal killed on a road by a motor vehicle. Car Accident (n.)- when a vehicle collides with another vehicle, pedestrian, animal, road debris, or other stationary obstruction, such as a tree or utility pole. Traffic collisions may result in injury, death, vehicle damage, and property damage.
U.S. Should cut off aid to the middle east

The idea of cutting of aid to the Middle East purely due to the idea that terrorism exists in those countries is like saying that every country should stop helping America because of crime and terrorist groups within it. The source of terrorism isn't the Middle East. America doesn't support the terrorists within the Middle East, they suport those seeking to fight against it, and the areas affected by the wars that occur as a result. The main issue with your argument is that you are trying to push that 'Middle East = Terrorism', when, only a few countries within the Middle East are controlled by terrorists, and even then, these countries have groups willing to fight against these terrorists, as they are the minorities within a largely peaceful race. To be short, the decision to cut off aid to the Middle East wouldn't tell other countries that we are against terrorism, as we don't fund the terrorists, we provide aid to those affected by their actions. If anything this action would be seen as an act of sheer ignorance and cowardice, pulling back from a war we made worse. Also, removing aid wouldn't reduce terrorism in America, if anything it would create more enemies in the Middle East, those we once provided aid to, now left to die. We would only make it easier for these countries to be inducted under the ISIS flag, and worsen the problem. Since you seem to like metaphors so much, here's another one: Imagine you gave Timmy your sandwich every day, because he never got much lunch. Now imagine you stopped giving it to him because his measles were making everyone else sick. Now, Timmy has every right to be mad, after all, he needed that sandwich, and you took it away because a small part of him harmed someone else.
Accept this debate.

Accept this too? xoxo =======>http://www.youtube.com...Pro instigated this debate supporting the acceptance of it and encouraging the opponent to freely accept. He did it so convincingly and brilliantly that Con him/herself accepted and specifically states: "Accepted." and even politely remarks "this is clearly an acceptance round" and that they can't wait for my reasoning.We see that Con concedes that not only have they accepted this debate but they are clearly in support and in anticipation for what can result from the acceptance of it. Con has not only conceded that accepting the debate was the best way to facilitate it to occur but has furthermore displayed positive feelings towards what accepting inevitably will cause to occur.If Con has, through action and words alike, shown agreement to the notion of accepting this debate and conceded that they intended to show it then it leaves us with one major question: What could Con possibly argue?They cannot argue and have 0 debates as proof of this. They are very confused and are a rather inexperienced debater and we should forgive them for the errors of their ways. I have more and accepted many. The definition of reject [http://tinyurl.com...] can be any of the following:1) Dismiss as inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty2) Refuse to agree to (a request)3) Fail to show due affection or concern for (someone)Let's look at 'accept:1) Consent to receive or undertake (something offered)2) Give an affirmative answer to (an offer or proposal); say yes to3) Receive as adequate, valid, or suitableBy accepting alone, they have shown non-rejection and pro-acceptance.Con can say they disagree with this debate but it would be disproven by the fact that the only way they could be arguing that is if they accepted this debate to begin with which they verbally admit to doing in Round 1.
Accept this debate.

Accepted. I look forward to this debate. It's rare you get the opportunity to have a long, quality debate over the most exciting of topics. So few people realize the importance of the topic we'll be discussing here and it's our job to show the viewers that not only is understanding this issue critical to society as a whole, but that it directly relates to and is important to that particular viewer's life. As this is clearly an acceptance round, I cannot wait to read the reasoning behind my opponent's claim (even if it *is* only an implied claim.)
theism is atheism

Correct. Atheists and Theists do fight about religious debates such as Christianity vs Hinduism or Judaism vs Atheism. However, saying this does not mean that they are necessarily the same thing. Yes they both believe in something and yes they both fight about similar things, but that doesn't mean they are the same. An apple is round, a plum is round. An apple is sweet, a plum is sweet. But this does not just prove the fact that an apple and a plum are the same thing, similar to your argument that atheism and theism are the same thing.
theism is atheism

The dictionary definition of an atheism is as states; "...atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists." Contrary to this, theism is; "The belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures." So there is really no argument present sir.
theism is atheism

if i take my hand behind my back, and claim i am showing 3 fingers, is it true for you to say yes vi you are? you can believe that i am showing 4 fingers, or 5, and if you believe my claim that i am showing 3 fingers behind my back you are an atheist to the guys believing that i am showing 4 or 5 fingers only 3 positions exist on any imaginary claim, yes no or maybe, and imaginary claims are unknown, so not about truth
Gay Rights

This debate is getting messy.Letting GM be allowed won't stop AIDS. It will always be around no matter what. For example; two gays, Bob and Jack have smex. Jack has AIDS. Bob then gets AIDS.But, did Jack get AIDS from being careless or something esle? 16k didnt prove this.----------------------------------------------------- "I never mentioned my religion. I also never said any of this."I know but first round you said: "If gay people want to marry, so be it. It would be illegal to ban gay people marrying.How does that prove anything? Christains (which I am) shouldn't hate gays. There is nothing in that snipbit that proves this point.------------------------------------------------------ So you used the christian argument, and I tried to refute it. So yes, I destroyed your argumentIm sorry, but this is unclear.------------------------------------------------------Why? You argue they should, so show me and the voters a good reason why. Also I will show you that they do not have same rights. (they do in new york, hawaii, a few other states, and sates that have civil unions). S about 1/2 of the states grant = rights to them, but once again, prove why they should have them.Because there is no good reason why not.As said, your giving special rights to non-gays. ------------------------------------------------------a few things, yes lab made drugs are bad. lol. Why ask that, those are unnatural btw. But now the naturalist argument:Marrying a horse is unnatural, so since marring a man naturally is bad too.Also we should reject unnatural things a it has harm, aka aids in this case. Some unnatural things are good, aka glasses and such, but much of the time unnatural things are detrimental, like lab made drugs.This is what I like to call "the Nature Fallacy". You cant say GM is bad because it is unnatural, because not all unnatural things are bad. Houses, cars, books, meds, clothes etc. You need more then "Because it is unnatural"-------------------------------------------------------- Gays are more likely to do drugsBanning GM wont stop this.-------------------------------------------------------Also gays are more likely to sustain abuse from their partners.sing a cross-sectional survey sample of 817 men who have sex with men (MSM) in the Chicago area, this study tested the effect of psychological and demographic factors generally associated with intimate partner abuse and examined their relationship to various health problems. Overall, 32.4% (n = 265) of participants reported any form of relationship abuse in a past or current relationship; 20.6% (n = 168) reported a history of verbal abuse ("threatened physically or sexually, publicly humiliated, or controlled"), 19.2% (n = 157) reported physical violence ("hit, kicked, shoved, burned, cut, or otherwise physically hurt"), and 18.5% (n = 151) reported unwanted sexual activity. [6] So? What is stopping them from finding a nice person? ---------------------------------------------------
Gay Rights

I'm sorry for the FF.a. The divorce rate in America for first marriage, vs second or third marriage50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce adding gay marriage would add on to that mess, further weakening the institution of marriage. http://www.divorcerate.org......I don't see why GM(Gay Marriage) would mess up the institution of marriage more then normalb. AIDSGay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died.Gay Marriage has nothing to do with AIDS. Dont have sex with anyone with AIDS. Gays know this.So gays have a high % of aids, and letting them marry uld actually increase the number of aids patients because since thy have a 50% divorce rate, they can spre to their next spouse. Prove please.c. ChristiansAmerica is still mostly chrisian, and allowing gay marriage would royally make them mad. Here's why christians anti-gay: Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah) Leviticus 18:22 Romans 1:17-32 1 Corinthians 6:9-13 (and 1 Timothy 1:9-14)The reason I have not spelled it out is because most people know what are in these verses. It doesn't matter. Your "Appealing to the majority" Well your christian stuff is against the bible, and my christian stuff. Since you want christian rules to apply then gay marriage should be illegal. So you just fed my argument. I never mentioned my religon. I also never said any of this. C2: They have more of a chance to have AIDSWell I explained that their group of people has a lot of aids infections in it, but I will explain in more detail. In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women. Gay people have the same chance has everyone esle.C4: It is not naturalSince it is not natural to marry a dog, that concept shoul dbe illegal. That same rule applies to gays. So anything thats not from nature is bad? How about lab made drugs? Are they bad?
Gay Rights

This debate is a LD debate.Gay should be able to marry because:Nothing bad would happen.What will happen, that is so harmful to society? If so does that mean we should ban ALL things that cause events that are harmful?Right to happiness.If gay people want to marry, so be it. It would be illegal to ban gay people marrying.Christian stuffGay people could be an atheist. Would it be good ethics to apply Christian rules one atheist?