BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teenagers and voting

I saw a debate of a similar nature on this site and decided it was not conducted rightly, so I have decided to re-do and see what happens The Argument- the voting age should be reduced to 15 Definitions(if any are really needed) vote- the right to vote in US governmental elections I would like to begin with a little examination of what qualifies adulthood. Legally adulthood is reached at the age of 18, but many of us under the age of legal adulthood already exhibit the signs of maturity and good citizenship (the things I believe are required to vote). Many teenagers already deal with many of the things adults deal with, such as work and managing their own lives, as at this point in their life they are preparing for adulthood. Seeing that teenagers, if not legally, socially are adults see no reason a teenager should be denied the right to vote. I believe the big question that could be put out there against this point is "Are we prepared?" and I would next like to answer that question. The simple answer to that question is yes....the longer answer to the question is slightly more complex. In teenagers we see a wide range of maturities from childish to very socially responsible, but I also see that spectrum played out even with people who are legally adults, which makes me ask the question that I am debating here today. Does the simple fact that adults have been alive longer qualify them to vote, is a mentally disabled adult more fit to vote then a mentally competent teenager?. I would contend the answer is no Seeing that age is not a factor I will move to others. Education is very important when we consider who should vote, but does education mean just graduating from high school and college?. Once again I say no, Many teenagers are educated very well even before they attain these 'symbols'. Im fairly certain there are a few debaters on this site that are teenagers and can hold there own in political debates. One of the founding fathers of this country had no high school or college degree and no one today would say they were not capable men. Seeing that education between adults and well applied teenagers is essentially the same I see no reason that this should disqualify us either. In closing if maturity and education do not separate us then what else that matters really does?. And if nothing else does separate us then why are we denied the right to vote.
Teenagers and voting

While I do appreciate the fact the Pro conceded in my favor to the issue of teen deaths, I fail to understand his point about varying "percentile difference." This is unfortunate, as I would hope to counter this point, if only I could comprehend it. Hopefully, I will not be voted against for failure to understand what Pro had brought up. Perhaps in the future, Pro could consider being more articulate when elaborating his arguments. My opponent states that teenagers should be able vote because the majority of teenagers will be taught civics and American or world history at this time. Pro offers no proof that the majority of teens in the U.S will take these classes at the age of fifteen, nor does he present evidence to the effect these classes have on a teenagers ability to comprehend issues and understand consequences like a mature adult voter can. This is yet another unfortunate mistake on Pro's part, he had the burden of proof and yet presented no evidence to his claims, not limited to the ones of which I discuss currently. Sadly, I must ignore this argument as well. Pro is right in the sense that I do often discuss the importance of actions and consequences in voting, and I do talk about it in the sense that there is a right and wrong side of each vote. To further elaborate, I intended to suggest that a teen may think voting for X may be in his best interest, while X will lead to undesired consequences which the teen does not truly want. Because teens lack foresight, as previously stated and cited a multitude of times, the teen will not vote for Y, which is truly in their best interest. While it should hold not bearing in the arguement, I do not believe it is ethical for a person to vote if they are not intelligent enough to understand the power of their vote and how it will effect the world around them. In conclusion, teenagers are not fully mentally and socially developed, and cannot fully comprehend the consequences to their actions, ergo, they can not rationally vote for what they truly believe in, assuming they even have personally beliefs, because, as I have already proved, teens political views correlate with that of their parents and peers. A vote for Con is encouraged. I thank Pro for his arguments, and wish him the best of luck on DDO. I hope to debate him again in the near future.
any action not based on a natural need is evil

Not to be rude but no, you really haven't explained anything. You simply make a bunch of random statements that have pretty close to nothing to do with the resolution, therefore you have not specified what you are actually talking about. "you are evil for having a job" What would you rather have him do? Not get a job and let his family starve. Are you really saying it is evil for him to try to put food on the table for his family? Is feeding his family really an evil thing? Money itself is not evil, capitalism itself is not evil, the economy itself is not evil. Rather it is what you do with money that can be either benevolent or malevolent. The top 1 % aren't always bad people. Let's take Bill Gates for example. He is one of the richest men in the world. He started a project offering 1 million dollars to anyone who can reinvent the condom to make the practice of using them more accepted. He wants to make the world more free of STI's. What does he gain from this? Nothing. He is not doing anything selfish or greedy. He is trying to make the world a better place. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Now let's take Dan Price. He recently cut his almost 1 million dollar salary to 70k a year to make it easier for his company to give a massive pay raise to all of their employees. http://www.latimes.com... "your examples are ridiculously complicated.. im not going to adress them more then i have" So because you can't understand my fairly simple ideas you are simply going to refuse to respond to them? "any example of immorality is sufficient to counter my claim" So then let me give you an example of something natural that is immoral. Let's say you are a young man with a girlfriend (Let's say you're 16). You happen to have a knife on you. You are walking around and you see your girlfriend getting very close with a guy and you think they are attracted to each other. You don't know anything for sure, but you're jealous. The only thought filling your mind is to take her from him and make sure he doesn't go near her again. May I remind you that you have a knife. Your natural instinct may be to separate them and fight the man, maybe even kill him if it comes to it. There, that's an example of a natural instinct that is immoral. That natural instinct to murder out of jealousy. So as you put it, that's sufficient to counter your claim. Therefore the resolution is wrong and you are wrong. "sellfish is evil, so having a job is evil" Sure, you can say being selfish is evil. However what you fail to prove is that there is a direct link to having a job and being selfish. Until you can prove that your argument is illegitimate. I would also like to remind you this has nothing to do with the resolution "becsaue i accept the 99 percent suffering, and the 1 percent to be like gods" Because you say 99% of the population are suffering and 1% are not having a job is evil. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Sure some people are suffering, but I assure you it is not 99% of the population. The top 1% will have a much greater chance to live a much better life, but that's not proving anything.
any action not based on a natural need is evil

i already explained the crucks of it.. machine is specified, natural is random, intent is specified on the path of being predictable, a demon is riding a bicycle you are evil for having a job, accepting that only 1 percent can live like gods, and this is the trap and reason why that hobo is there in the first place your examples are ridiculessly complicated.. im not going to adress them more then i have lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one, any example of immorality is sufficient to counter my claim sellfish is evil, so having a job is evil, becsaue i accept the 99 percent suffering, and the 1 percent to be like gods
any action not based on a natural need is evil

Thank you for making this debate. Good luck. Now let's get started. Action- a thing done Base- have as the foundation for (something); use as a point from which (something) can develop. Natural- existing in or caused by nature Need- require (something) because it is essential or very important. Evil- profoundly immoral and malevolent. A little bit of a strange resolution, but I'll debate it. So let me start off with an example. I am walking down the street and I find a human laying down injured and malnourished. I have food, water and some bandages, unfortunately I am tight on supplies and losing any would be risky. So based on my natural need I would either leave the person and save my resources to use myself, or I would see if I can take anything he has that may be useful to me. According to the resolution doing anything other than those two options is evil. If I did something against my natural need something I could do would be take some of my scarce supplies and do my best to help the person, possibly saving their life. If the resolution is correct potentially saving someone's life is immoral or malevolent, however that action is a very benevolent thing to do. Thus the resolution is not correct, this means that the pro side is wrong and you should vote con. Now let's use another scenario. Every non-asexual human has a natural need to have sex in order to procreate to pass down their genetic material. This need has been caused by thousands and thousands of years of evolution and natural selection. "We are programmed to do so," says sex therapist Richard A. Carroll, associate Northwestern University psychiatry and behavioral sciences professor. Therefore we have a natural need for sex. Now onto the example. Let's say you're in the middle on nowhere and you find a passed out member of the opposite sex. Some would naturally have the need or the desire to have sex with them. For those individuals doing anything other than that would be unnatural. So if the resolution is correct to do anything other than having sex with said person while they are unconscious is evil. Many people would consider doing that immoral which, according to the definition is evil, is wrong. Sex with consent is wrong. That is a statement almost everyone can stand by, therefore the resolution is wrong. The resolution is wrong, for it has many holes in it and instances where it is wrong. For the resolution to be correct there must be no holes and it must be entirely true with no exceptions. That is not the case, therefore the resolution is wrong meaning pro is wrong. I rest my case.
Students of all ages should have nap time in school

You basically concede.RebuttalsOkay, this will be very short in depth.1. This is from Pro's third round. Napping time is a time to be quiet, when some people want to play. You can't force them to nap. Also recess time is very important for children. 3. http://news.stanford.edu...Says that, recess is very important part, as important as other subjects. The studies noted that it helps on stress and other problems, making them free, and energetic.2. Pro says that in the second round, we can make sleep in nap time. However, that is one hour. There is almost no benefit. It will do more harm and make you more tired because the best sleep is in a 3-hour or 1hr-30minute routine. This shows that there is no benefit of having napping time.3. In Pro' first argument, which was about studying, that is true that you get better at studying, however not in this occasion. Napping time is 1 hour, however the brain development time is in 10pm-2am which there is no helpThus the resolution is negated.
Students of all ages should have nap time in school

I completely understand what point you are trying to get across, and I agree with you the most part. TIme: Recess can be changed to an option of nap time in a quiet classroom, or playing outside. This will eliminate the chatter of students bugging each other as they rest. A teacher could also be present in the room, to make sure no one is being rude. Though most school do not have recess time. In this case, school time could be pushed to opening an hour early or keeping students an extra hour in the evening to allow them time to rest in the morning, without disturbing their education. "Napping can also have a negative effect on other sleeping periods. A long nap or a nap taken too late in the day may adversely affect the length and quality of nighttime sleep." Nap time should only be advised during the morning or noon periods to prevent sleep loss during night time. https://sleepfoundation.org...
Students of all ages should have nap time in school

We should not need nap time because of 4 reasons.What is napping time?Napping in time at school is mostly defined as some sleep time int he afternoon for young children. Napping time is usually 1 hour long. It is a time where everyone has time to sleep from sleepiness.Arguments1. My first argument is all about that these middle or high schoolers will just waste that time.Okay, this argument is about that the junior or senior kids will just waste their time. This is mainly in two reasons. I will explain them into two different categories.Okay, first of all, my first category is that they won't sleep. As the definition of the napping time is mostly an hour, no one sleeps right away. They all use like 15 minutes laying down doing nothing. Also these kids will probably talk and basically have free time. There is no need for these distractions of learning. There is no need for these students to talk in napping time. It will decrease studying time, which is more important. This time is mostly when they are being ready for university, and if they have these classes, they will have less learning which will make them get more bad grades then other schools with no napping time.Secondly, there is less time to do schoolwork in this time. No one will be slept anyways because of talking. Also there is reasons to not have this time because of studying. First of all, the debate says that all ages should need napping time. However if these university students, sleep, they will probably have not much time to do other classes. This is just a waste of precious time.2. My second argument is that we need to sleep in an one hour and 30-minute routine to be the most awake.In my sources, there is a page where it says that, there is something read about that we do not need 6-8-hour sleeping. The time you are awake after sleep is 3 hours or 1-hour and 30-minutes. This shows that the definition of napping time is one hour, which means that you wouldn't have a good sleep, meaning that there is no good reason of having napping time because of you get tired.3. My third argument is that you can do other subjects than this waste of time.One of the worst things as humans is wasting your precious time. We can learn other things in this 1-hour time. We can learn a new language or a new subject. We have no need to use time in a waste of something.4. Also, naps make it harder to sleep at the night later. This means that if these students have nap time, then can't sleep at the night. Then they waste their sleep time which is 8 hours. This means that there is -7-hours of benifit if you nap at school.Sources1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...
Students of all ages should have nap time in school

Sleep is food for the brain. During sleep, important bodily function occur such as muscle repair, the release of hormones regulating growth and memory consolidation. Overtime, a short nap during school can help promote these activities, leading to smarter students that are ready to learn. Kids need role models, and adults are starting on the napping trend. According to an Article by Webmd, they interviewed William A. Anthony, and author, and psychiatrist studying the effects of napping. ""We're moving toward a 24/7 culture ... life isn't as easy as it used to be," says William A. Anthony, PhD, author of the book The Art of Napping at Work. "People don't nap to recover from last night's party," Anthony says. "They nap to make up for early-morning commutes, long work hours, and too many responsibilities at home. After a little nap, they feel more alert and do a better job, they tell him." "We've had reports from China that there are napping-imposed rules, a time when the lights go down, and everyone has to put their head on the desk and nap," Anthony tells WebMD." Adults are role models for children. The children should engage in activities such as napping as much as they participate in the use of alcohol, drugs and violence. According to Sleepfoundation.org students are not getting as much sleep as they need. " A recent study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that as much as two-thirds of high school students get less than seven hour so sleep nightly." This goes along with Nationwidechildrens.org that claims kids need at least 9 hours of sleep a night. "Adolescents are notorious for not getting enough sleep. The average amount of sleep that teenagers get is between 7 and 7 " hours. However, they need between 9 and 9 " hours (studies show that most teenagers need exactly 9 " hours of sleep). Teenagers do not get enough sleep for a number of reasons:" Students don't get enough sleep and kids can help make that up during nap time.
are aliens real

Thank you for your reference to the "Die Glocke". It does seem plausible to have such an operational device designed and deployed by the Nazi regime. However, I seem to be unable to locate any evidence of anyone who has successfully replicated the technology of this purported "Die Glocke". As such, I cannot accept your reference as evidence enough as proof that aliens exist. To believe strongly that aliens exist based on such a reference does not make for a compelling argument.
Messi is the king of Barcelona

I do not agree with my oponent for that I copy pasted my agument,I put it to him that the site he found was part of my sources that I have my information,lets go on to the main subject, Lionel Messi has got no Competition in world football today, During Ronaldinho's era, too many players were at their peak and playing at an exciting and equal level,Now messi is doing such a great work that even if none of his supporting midfielders are not playing he can play and score goals . Lionel Messi became the first four-time winner of the FIFA Player of the Year award after shattering the world record with 91 goals last year for Barcelona and Argentina. King Juan Carlos I,King of Spain Reign 22 November 1975 " present Enthronement,27 November 1975 Predecessor: Alejandro Rodr"guez de Valc"rcel (interim Head of State )Alfonso XIII (as King of Spain) Francisco Franco (as Caudillo of Spain)Heirapparent Felipe, Prince of Asturias PrimeMinisters See list: Carlos Arias-Navarro Fernando de Santiago y D"az Adolfo Su"rez Leopoldo Calvo-Sotelo Felipe Gonz"lez Jos" Mar"a Aznar Jos" Luis Rodr"guez Zapatero Mariano Rajoy Spouse: Sophia of Greece and Denmark Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo Infanta Cristina, Duchess of Palma de Mallorca Felipe, Prince of Asturias Full name Juan Carlos Alfonso V"ctor Mar"a de Borb"n y Borb"n-Dos Sicilias House: House of Bourbon[1][2] Father Infante Juan, Count of Barcelona Mother Princess Mar"a de las Mercedes of Bourbon-Two Sicilies Born 5 January 1938 (age 76) Rome, Italy Signature Religion, Roman Catholicism. My oponent was right for that juan carlos I is the king of barcelona that is the real bio of him,But let take it to another view,let enter football for instance lionel messi will be the Juan carlos I when it comes to football. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org......
Messi is the king of Barcelona

In all my days of debating (very short days) I have decided that my opponent has created an act of plagiarism! I said it! Plagiarism! Look at his argument, it is copy pasted from this source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Go to the Club career section, and into the Barcelona part. My opponent copy pasted from this source. "Messi played in Barcelona's junior Infantil B and Cadete B & A teams from 2000 to 2003 (scoring 37 goals in 30 matches in Cadete A). He was nearly released from the club in 2003 because of financial constraints, but his youth coaches convinced management to keep him (Cesc Fabregas was released during this purge).[25] Season 2003"04 saw him on a record five different teams:[26] He started one match in Juvenil B (one goal) and got promoted to Juvenil A (14 matches, 21 goals). Later, he debuted for the FC Barcelona C team (Tercera Divisi"n) on 29 November 2003 and for FC Barcelona B (Segunda Divisi"n B) on 6 March 2004. He played for both teams during the season (10 matches, five goals and five matches, zero goals, respectively).[27][28][29] Even before these two debuts, Messi made his official debut for the first-team on 16 November 2003 aged 16 years and 145 days, in a friendly match against Porto.[30][31] Less than a year after his start, Frank Rijkaard gave him his league debut against RCD Espanyol on 16 October 2004 (at 17 years and 114 days), becoming the third-youngest player ever to play for Barcelona and youngest club player to play in La Liga, which would be broken by Bojan Krkić in September 2007. When he scored his first senior goal for the club against Albacete Balompi" on 1 May 2005, Messi was 17 years, ten months and seven days old, becoming the youngest to ever score in a La Liga game for Barcelona[32] until it was again broken by Bojan Krkić in 2007, scoring from a Messi assist.[33] Messi said about his ex-coach Rijkaard: "I'll never forget the fact that he launched my career, that he had confidence in me while I was only sixteen or seventeen."[34] During the season, Messi played also in Barcelona B (Segunda Divisi"n B) scoring 6 goals in 17 matches." Since my opponent created an act of plagiarism, and did not address any of my points, I believe I have already won this debate! I already proved that Messi is not the king, and my opponent copy pasted from wikipedia.