BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The drinking age should be reduced to 18 years of age.

Even thought there are many people, no matter the age that make many bad decisions such as driving, assault, and many others, there are also the people that can handle what they drink. There are people that are 50 years old that drinking should be illegal for, and then theres 17 or 18 year olds that modestly and responsibly drink alcohol. For example, any marine, navy, air force, national guard, or any sort of military defense personel have the responsibility and the discipline to make the decision to serve our country in some shape or form. These people should have the opportunity to consume alcohol legally. Regarding the punishment when it comes to being caught drinking underage, my opponent is mostly correct. You wont necessarily be arrested. However, the punishment you can encounter from these charges is usually worse in the end then jail is. Resulting in loss of drivers license, which can cause an individual to loose their job, which would be a downhill slope from there. The fines that come with this are also very impacting. One can be fined up to $5,000 at the end of the legal predicament.
The drinking age should be reduced to 18 years of age.

My opponent has argued his position of reducing the legal drinking age as a matter which can be treated in isolation. In this, his arguments are not necessarily invalid (although, to my knowledge, underage drinking is not an arrestable offense in most states, which negates point 2 of his argument). However, the reason the legal drinking age is not 18 is because alcohol consumption is distinctly correlated to other activities - mostly notably, drunk driving. The federal minimum legal drinking was established in 1984, and fully implemented by 1988. Research has found that "among fatally injured drivers ages 16-20, the percentage with positive BACs declined from 61% in 1982 to 31% in 1995" - a more significant decline than any other age group. [1] Alcohol consumption in general has also been reduced in this age group [1]; it has been suggested that this reduction may also be correlated to drops in other crime rates, although findings are not conclusive since other reforms may have also contributed to these drops. Based on this evidence and contrary to my opponents second point, it is more likely that the minimum legal drinking age has actually kept more young people out of prison. It has also, more conclusively, kept them out of coffins. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The drinking age should be reduced to 18 years of age.

The drinking age in the United states should be set back to 18 for the following reasons. 1) If an 18 year old can fight for this country, that individual should be allowed to consume alcohol. 2) Less arrests would be made, resulting in more jail space for actual criminals. 3) If you are considered a "Legal Adult" and can be legally tried at an adult level, you should be able to consume alcohol at 18.
In schools, should you have to ask to use the restroom.

Round 2 Points: Point 1: If you ask, then this gives the teacher the ability to say no. No one should have the power to decide if another human is allowed to perform a necessary bodily function or not. Point 2: You don't always have time to ask. If it is an emergency, seconds can determine you make it in time. Point 3: If teachers always allow the student to go, what is the point of asking? If the teacher doesn't, refer to point 1.
In schools, should you have to ask to use the restroom.

Debate to your point, Point 1 - it's called respect, do you go to someone's house and then just go into their fridge because you are hungry, or thirsty? Do you just not show up for work because your ill, no you tell your boss that you are not coming in. In school, teachers govern over the kids, they teach and I believe they should be given some respect, you don't just start walking out because you need to go, if you do that it will be abused by other students. Point 2 if it's an emergency, do you honestly think that the 3 seconds it takes to ask the teacher will make a difference if you have diarrhea, even if you didn't ask you still wouldn't make it down the hall to the bathroom if it was such a big emergency, otherwise I think you can hold it for an extra 5 seconds it takes to ask. Point 3 again it comes down to showing respect, sure the teacher will say yes, but at least you are letting them know what you are doing, do you leave the house and not let your parents know where you are going, or other significant others in your household, no you let them know so they are aware what you are doing or where you are going. It's just common courtesy to let people know. According to your philosophy if I'm hungry I should just go and take food from others at lunch or just help myself to their car because I need to get somewhere fast, it's all about respect and communication. The teacher is responsible for your well being while you are in school, so therefore all you have to do is ask/let them know what you are doing.
Should bullies be punished sending them to prison or riformatory

the problem of simple-teasing is that can become bullying, en fact if you tease someone, this can bother him, this person doesn't want you to continue teasing him, but you don't stop because you think that it's funny for you. Obviously I mean two people who are classmates,co-workers... and not brothers,because it's normal to tease your brother. Prior to reformatory or prison,there must be some points where you,a bully, can stop bullying a person in order not to go to those places. At first you'll receive a warning, then you must go to the house arrest and, in the end you go to the reformatory/prison. If you continue doing it after been already there, you or your parents, it depends on your age, must pay compensation and go another time there for a longer time until you learn the lesson. These are the points if you are a bully at work or in Internet. If you're a bully in a school, the teachers or the parents can call the police if you have got a lot of bad marks for your bad behaviour towards the same person. Then happens what I've explained before, This is for gang bullying too. You can't draw a line because they're linked
Should bullies be punished sending them to prison or riformatory

The issue with this is less about the extent of punishment (which is an issue) and much more with what's being punished.When we extend the law (or amend the law, I'm not sure which is happening here as it was unclear the legal technicalities) we must be very exact with what constitutes bullying as opposed to simple teasing.Where do you draw the line between someone taking their frustrations out on someone in a way where a simple 'sorry' is acceptable or where someone is teasing in a semi-sadistic way that's simply to be considered playful and bullying which is to be legally punishable.I also want to ask about to what degree and even if it's case-by-case, the methodology that the parents end up blamed for the matter but the bigger issue is with where we draw the line on what is legally punishable bullying that can give someone a criminal record and what is 'okay semi-bullying that a sorry will solve'.I will guide my opponent a bit here as I want to genuinely help this debate be fair and don't want them to lose because they couldn't come up with exact measurements. There should certainly be four elements to it:1) Frequency of offense (especially if against the same victim/s)2) Severity of offences in terms of long-term harm as well as short-term damage to the phsiological and psychological well-being of the victim.3) Perhaps a more extensively recorded punishment system prior to legal punishment and signs that the individual is not rehabilitating their bullying?4) In cases of gang bullying, the extent of leadership and self-agency that the bully played in the acts.Now that I have given the four elements I believe it should be measured by, I ask my opponent to explain how we could find the exact lines where we find the perpetrator in need of severe retribution to the extent of forced bootcamp treatment as well as a criminal record.I also ask one more thing. Should childhood bullies be sooner prosecuted for adult 'bullying' and should bullying include encounters outside of work and/or school such as the Internet?
Resolved: In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends.

Resolved: In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends. Explanation of the resolution: The resolution is meant to ask if we ought to consider making the intent of people that commit crimes more important than what actually happens. No where does the Pro have to prove that this action is even capable of happening, but simply if someone's intention should be punished before someone's result. It's sort of like if someone was driving 100 miles per hour and kills someone if they should be punished for the death to full extent because they killed someone or should they only be punished for speeding, keeping in mind that the whole point that there are speeding tickets is because of the danger of other peoples lives... With that, I will begin with my opening arguments... I. Punishing ends is wrong. When someone intends to do no harm, they should not be punished for causing harm. When someone intends harm, they should not be set free for accidentally not causing harm. Having bad intentions is where the crime is. Just because there is a bad result, does not make something a crime. Therefore, when looking at court proceedings, true intent ought to have a higher weight than ends. II. We ought to punish TRUE intent. When someone intends harm, it is obvious that they deserve to be punished. The criminal justice system OUGHT TO prioritize them self to only be concerned with what was intended. Certainly it may be hard to determine intent, HOWEVER, that is the reason that TRUE is in this resolution. TRUE intent is punishable, unintended ends ought to not be punished. In the end- If something is unintended, it is out of the persons hands. Punishing them for something that they can't control is wrong. Therefore, In the United States, true intent ought to have a higher weight in court than ends. So please vote Pro. Thank You!
George Bush is a better president than Obama.

Part One: George Bush (junior) Consider a couple of the statements from his farewell Address: "I'd like to be a president (known) as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace," Bush said in excerpts of a recent interview released by the White House Friday. "I would like to be a person remembered as a person who, first and foremost, did not sell his soul in order to accommodate the political process. I came to Washington with a set of values, and I'm leaving with the same set of values." Bush added that "every day during his eight-year presidency he had consulted the Bible and drawn comfort from his faith. " Bush His Presidential Achievements Iraq " The Iraq war is ending in political reconciliation within Iraq " and with hope of an ongoing alliance between Iraq and the United States. Middle East " Libya has ended its nuclear program" Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states (ended) their old double game on terrorist financing" Hamas fundraising operations in North America have been rolled up"the second Palestinian intifada has been crushed. Terrorism " No new international terrorist attack inside the United States since 9/11. (during his term.) Nuclear Power " "Bush encouraged the nuclear-power industry." Source: http://foolocracy.com... Part Two: Obama I would like to start of by saying Obama is the most ignorant president in the history of the America. First, he defiled every foreign ally (especially Britain, our biggest ally, by throwing out Churchill). Second, he has gone to great lengths to eradicate the constitution and even destroy the 2nd amendment. Third, he has added more debt than every other president combined, and he fails to do anything except stage a press conferences to blame the previous president. Fourth, Obama has lied and had the least transparent president of all time.
People are predisposed to be followers by nature.

I apologize for any confusion. I am going to be debating the point that in ALL cases, humans are predisposed to be followers. However, you are more than welcome to introduce any ideas that will add to the validity of the debate. Thank you for asking for the clarification! Good luck. Humans by nature are programmed to be followers. Being a leader is something an individual must strive to achieve. Like many other abilities, leadership may come easy to some and hard for others but never is leadership abilities installed from birth. POINT 1: From birth many of us have been following our parents religiously. Many of us catch ourselves doing things we remember our parents doing as a child such as crossing your arms a certain way or saying a certain line you picked up from them. This is seldom done on purpose but is more often than not, science. Babies are programmed to copy their parents movements and lifestyles for survival. This is how humans learn to walk, speak, and write. This is evidence that even from early childhood, humans are predisposed to be followers. POINT 2: There are many examples through-out history (Ex. Nazi Germany, Japanese Internment Camps) where a large number of people committed heinous crimes and tormented their very own human brotherhood, simply because someone ordered them to. There is such thing as Stockholm syndrome where isolation and other factors cause people to become brainwashed by their captors; but this wasn't the case of Nazi Germany, considering thousands of casual citizens signed on to commit terrible atrocities without much incentive or threat of punishment at all. (Not saying this didn't happen of course!) POINT 3: I would also like to point out two experiments that many people are aware of. EXPERIMENT 1: The Milgrim experiment, conducted in 1963, demonstrated how people will go against their better judgement, regardless if it inflicted pain on another person, simply because an authority figure ordered it. EXPERIMENT 2: Another experiment known as the Asch conformity experiment was conducted to show that habitual nature of humans to conform. A group of young gentlemen were gathered together in a room. They were presented with a poster of which a set of lines were drawn of different lengths. All but one of the test subjects were in on the experiment and were told to give a wrong answer when asked a question. When the test administrator asked each individual which of the lines were the longest, each one would intentionally give a wrong answer. Many times, once the administrator asked the real test subject, he would choose the wrong line (knowing it was wrong) to avoid being differentiated or socially out-casted from the group. Humans by nature are indeed created to follow each other. Whether we like to admit it or not being a leader isn't something any person is born with. It is instead something that is learned through experiences.
People are predisposed to be followers by nature.

Hello! I am new to debating on this website and have been reading through many fantastic debates. This particular topic is one I have been intrigued to debate. There are many opinions out there that humans by nature were born to lead. I am on the contending end as I believe that we as individuals are predisposed to be followers. My opponent should be arguing the contrary. I am not choosy about how my debates are conducted....all I ask for is.... a) Please allow round one to be for acceptance and clarifications ONLY!! b) Be witty and smart by all means; but keep conduct professional or forfeit your conduct point!
WW3 miner countries round 2

European CampaignAs true as that maybe or not be Ireland has a good Navy so it turns out to be the battle of Midway around Denmark.Czech Republic sees this opportunity to take out the Polish since their attention is turned toward Ireland and start bombing factories.AmericanJust like in WW2 battle ships open file on the shore easily taking out the Marines. Also having Parachute landings behind enemy lines.AsianAussie wins that battle, but are caught trying to build a airfield in the Philippians. Vietnam launches a counter-attack for such atrocity's.
WW3 miner countries round 2

European CampainPoland has the best airforce in Europe. They easily take out Irelands transports and ships before they make it close to land.AmericanThat was back in the late 1800's early 1900's, this is taking place today.The Mexican Marines take defencive poistions and hold off the intial attack long enough for the air force to take out the landing ships.AsianThe Vietnam Air force is full of Soviet era planes, the Aussie Air force is full of modren planes.The Aussie air force takes out the 'Nam air force without breaking a sweat.
WW3 miner countries round 2

European CampaignThey were both invaded by Nazi Germany. You forgot my other country of Ireland.Ireland starts by invading Finland to protects its ally Czech Rep.American The only war that the Mexicans were in was the War against the U.S. which they lost.Brazil and V. (I'll be referring to Venezuela as V.) invade Mexico by Baja California and the Balas river.AsianAs true as that is/ was, Vietnam has huge guerrilla warfare not only that, but 20th in the world in tank size and a large air forces. Australians air force is caught in a dog fight over Papa New Guiana.
WW3 miner countries round 2

European Campaign Ask yourself when was the last time that the Polocks and the Finns were on the winning side of a war World War II American Campaign Mexico is in the middle of a drug war so very little unity will even be avalible and most of the refuges will be flocking to the U.S. Border. As i said last time, the drug war is over for this debate. Asian Campaign Remember the Vietnam war when the U.S. couldn't win due to the gurilla warfare. The same example will be set of Australia and they aren't even a Superpower or even a Hyper power. European Campaign That was back then, this is now.
WW3 miner countries round 2

Good storyAsian CampaignRemember the Vietnam war when the U.S. couldn't win due to the gurilla warfare. The same example will be set of Australia and they aren't even a Superpower or even a Hyper power.European CampaignAsk yourself when was the last time that the Polocks and the Finns were on the winning side of a warAmerican CampaignMexico is in the middle of a drug war so very little unity will even be avalible and most of the refuges will be flocking to the U.S. Border.
WW3 miner countries round 2

WWIII how it starts......... The "American" Campaign Brazil and Venezuela blockade the Gulf of Mexico, cutting trade off and forcing Mexico to find another port for the trade to come in at. Canada rushes to mobilize and help its Southern comrades. The "European" Campaign The Czech Rep decides it doesn't have a lot of land mass, so it invades Poland for more. Finland, having been invaded for the same reasons by the Germans and Russians, decides to help Poland out. The "Asian" Campaign Australia has been growing tired of being called the "laid back country" and decides to grow a pair and "acquire" some territories. Vietnam just happens to be the first country Australia had on its list. Australia mobilizes its navy and air force to clear the way for the ground forces. And that, my friend, is how WWIII the Minor Countries starts. Good luck My Friend
WW3 miner countries round 2

EuropeanIreland has aircraft cairriers and an airforce for this attack death toll so far gets high Demark in the figth. Just to protect it's fishing industry.AmericanAirforce carriers lauch in the Naval battle. Battle turns so dramattic that Brazil resorts to Kamakazies.AsianEven if the jets are Soviet doesn't make them obsoliet. In a counter-attack the Vietnamese gets Chinese pramission to use Tiwan as a Naval station.
WW3 miner countries round 2

European CampaignAs true as that maybe or not be Ireland has a good Navy so it turns out to be the battle of Midway around Denmark.Czech Republic sees this opportunity to take out the Polish since their attention is turned toward Ireland and start bombing factories The Polish Airforce is divided amoung the 2 fronts, and the Navy is busy defending the ports of Poland. The Polish army defends against the Czech Republic.AmericanJust like in WW2 battle ships open file on the shore easily taking out the Marines. Also having Parachute landings behind enemy lines. Mexican Navy defends against the blockade, the Marines and Army defend agaist the land forces. Cant shell a beach if your too busy avoided an oncoming missle.AsianAussie wins that battle, but are caught trying to build a airfield in the Philippians. Vietnam launches a counter-attack for such atrocity's.The Full force of the Aussie armed forces comes out with a massive attack before 'Nam can attack the airfield trying to be built
Missionary style is the best way to have sex.

In regards to my first point of the argument. It has been scientifically studied (the theory of sex and sexual positions in a heterosexual relationship that is) and, to no surprise, the male partner was unconcerned about the position of which the intercourse took place. However, the female rated the whole sexual encounter on feeling over comfort. Who wouldn't? Now, although there may be more favorable positions that cater to the "comfort" of each partner, your debate does not single out this issue. The debate topic states "best" way to have sex. 1) Not true. The girl does not have to support her entire weight while the guy lays there like a dead fish. If the male supports the female with his hands, this takes the strain off the female so that both partners are equally having to sustain "gravity." 2) This is subjective. Depending on the relationship, that might not be the desired goal. 3) No justification besides personal opinion, which is undebatable and not on topic with the beginning topic of debate. This country, although more open then anytime in the past, does not need to debate issues such as sexual positions. There are other "positions" that have greater magnitude on the well-being of the country as a whole.
Missionary style is the best way to have sex.

"The best sex position is that in which the female is pleasured most (must I explain?)" Yes I think you should. I took a rather utilitarian approach to this debate by trying to account for all pleasure for both parties (the best way to have sex should not greatly favor one gender over another). This would mean mutual pleasure for both the male and the female (for the sake of debate I'm just going to refer to heterosexual couples only). The goal is to maximize the pleasure for both parties, not exclusively for females. Having said that, I doubt you'll find a guy out there who objects to having a girl on top (if you notice I even approve of a mix of missionary with this position in particular). "The first one even more so because the "work load" is of equal share in this position." Not true. This position gives more of the "work load" (hahah what a funny way of referring to this) to the woman then any other position I know. Guys are left sort of unable to do a whole lot because of the weight pinning us down (Not to suggest we're totally paralyzed though). 1.) Girl on top. Or Cowboy as it will not be referred to as. Is not as comfortable as missionary because both parties are laying (this varies) in missionary and don't need to combat the force of gravity. One aspect that is inherent with Cowboy style is that the girl will have to hold and assume a position on top of the guy that will not be as comfortable as laying down. 2.) With missionary you are much closer to your partner which adds to the emotional and shared aspect of it all. Although you do have a similar connection in Cowboy style, the connection is heightened in missionary. 3.) I agree it is pleasurable for both partners. But that doesn't mean it's better then missionary! Very perverted topic? Then why did you respond? Are we really a country that is this embarrassed of talking about what happens in the bedroom? We're all human folks, drop the sense of propriety and entitlement and lets debate!