BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Laws Inplace Which Prohibit Sex Among Teens do a Good Job at Reducing the Amount of Teens Having Sex

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. I don't think the argument requires any definitions of any sort, but still. Law: legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity Teens: A person between the ages of 13 and 19; an adolescent. And we are arguing on the resolution that the laws in place which prohibit sex among teens do a good job at the amount of sex the teens do- as opposed to the situation when the laws would not be there. Teenage refers the age of 13-19, a time when puberty starts (and continues). It is often a time of confusions, a time when the person is still identifying himself. Major physical and psychological changes are taking place throughout this period. The adolescent is nervous and unsteady in the sudden and major physical changes. Now, this is where the effect of laws come into place. Laws restricting the age limit for sex, they are like a boundary. A person who is crossing the boundary knows that he is crossing the legal boundary to do the act. i.e. the act is not supported by law. Now, just for a moment, imagine that in this world, there are no laws, no legal documents setting forth the minimum age limit for consensual sex. That means, in a household, the minimum age limit would be logically set forth by the parents. Thus there would be a fair amount of teens who lose their virginity at 14. Without any opposition, any stigma. And just remember-they are teens, who live in the high school. Word spreads. Suddenly they are cool, their parents are cooler, and since many their counterparts who are not allowed- well, resentment breeds, they feel angry at their parents who are not as cool, and being a teenager, they feel angry because ‘they are being controlled by their parents', ‘when they are perfectly capable of living their life themselves'. Relation with parents detoriates. At 13.(or lower) Now laws, they attach a stigma on those breaking it. They are ‘criminals'. And that is not a very enviable place to be. Whatever the place be, there are some things that no one wants to be. And I'm not talking of psycho-killers; I'm talking of normal healthy individuals, who make up the majority of the population. No one wants to be a criminal. Obviously, the amount of teens doing sex would go low. I don't see what is there to prove about this. Laws have some effect. Laws are there= people following laws are there= less people not following laws are there. This is simple common sense. Also, the teens who are losing their virginity at the age below that specified by the law know that legally they have no rights, if the sex leads to pregnancy. A scared girl doing it for the first time will consider it. And lastly, laws specifying age of consent prohibit sex being ‘sold' to minors, which again lowers the amount. Sources: www.dictionary.net http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Laws Inplace Which Prohibit Sex Among Teens do a Good Job at Reducing the Amount of Teens Having Sex

=== INTRODUCTION === What do you know...I actually fit the title. In this debate I will be arguing that laws in-place which prohibit teens from having sex actually do a poor job at accomplishing it. My opponent will be arguing otherwise. We shall both have a burden of proof for supporting our side. As I usually do, I will let my opponent go first.
Teaching young boys not to rape will work. (America)

1) I checked my source. I even used Crtl + F but couldn't find any reference to race at all2)" My argument is more nuanced, and it's that all of society has this belief that either rape isn't that bad, or that it should be awarded. " As I have stated before, this Rape culture is a false idea(at least in the US) and I would rather not repeat myself, look to the RAINN quote I posted.3)When you have prevention campaigns like Slutwalk it makes this attempt at "educating" people a joke.4)Now here's a problem. There is quite the debate over what consists as consent, when it can and cannot be given so that is quite the touchy area that I can't really step on because I still need to form my own opinion. What I know is that:Regret =\= Rape and that Clothes =\= Asking for it.This has been a great debate(though I have forgotten about it a few time.)Thank you for entertaining my first debate and have a great day
Teaching young boys not to rape will work. (America)

That sources specifically addresses the concern that there might be some special types of people (black, white, latinx, etc) that will rape because it was a part of their culture -- that's not my argument. My argument is more nuanced, and it's that all of society has this belief that either rape isn't that bad, or that it should be awarded, though people never use the word 'rape'. RAINN actually, in that same report, supports the pro side of the debate."A prevention campaign should include the following ... General education to promote understanding of the law, particularly as it relates to the ability to consent ... ", where specifically the same document of your source says that education is vital to combatting some problem (whether that is cultural or not, I cannot say) as it relates to rape.My point on aggressive rape was that there is some mental distinction that we have for rape to just further my point of a culture. Maybe I was right, maybe I was wrong, but it wasn't fundamnetal to my case. When you say it is like teaching 'murderers not to murder', I have to disagree -- 1. that is anti-male as it assumes that all little boys are fundamentally rapists (lol, I joke), and 2. it's a lot more nuanced than just 'don't murder ok'. I would imagine if we are to teach young boys, and young girls, the way consent works, we will be able to fight against rape. Maybe that means we have people come into classrooms with rape survivors, maybe it's just another lesson for the teacher who gets red in the face, I don't know -- but understanding the ways that consent in achieved allows us to combat rape.
Teaching young boys not to rape will work. (America)

My apologises for such a late reply. I have been very busy and nearly forgot abot this debate.Firstly:Let me quote RAINN for a second: "In the last few years, there has been an unfortunate trend towards blaming “rape culture” for the extensive problem of sexual violence on campuses. While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple fact: Rape is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime." - I think this speaks for itself. This clearly states that rapists are very well diversed in the idea that rape is bad, they just do it because they can and want to. Teaching boys not to rape will do nothing and if anything to a very negligable amount. Now let's look at your "agressive rape" and "rape"The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...The keyword here is "forcing." I'm sure this word would usually convey a very agressive and violent message. This is why rape is usually thought of as this "agressive rape," but is that really a bad thing? Rape is still rape, if someone is raped, whether it be agressive or otherwise, people still do not appreciate or accept this rape.For the "only 3% of rapists are arrested." These people debunk this way better than I ever could:http://happycabbie.blogspot.com...https://www.reddit.com...While it is quite an attempt, this attempt will sadly only lead to no results. America's society has no "rape culture" and this "teaching young boys not to rape" nonsense is just spreading this irresponsible ideology. It's your responsiblity for what you do and how you prevent danger. That's like saying, "Let's just teach robbers not steal" and "Let's just teach murderers not to murder." Many people are taking from this ideology that their safety is not their responisbilties and it's harmful to them and other weak-minded people and youth.It is late at night and sadly don't much time to divulge further, I eagerly await your reply
Teaching young boys not to rape will work. (America)

Rape culture is the valuation of rape and the devaluation of ideas that speak against it. We are engrained to think that yes, rape is a bad thing, but it's not something that is extremely bad -- this is why there is a mindset difference between "aggressive rape" and "rape", while they are one in the same, people will likely only speak out against the former. Let's look to a statistic put out by RAINN, in which they say that only 3% of all rapists ever serve any jailtime. Maybe it is misandrist to assume that men will rape, maybe we should inform all people to not rape from a young age (boys, girls), but that doesn't mean that there should not be any attempt to curtail it. When given the rules of society ("don't rape") from a young age, people incorporate that into their own worldview, and then there is an obvious removal of rape culture and valuation of rape.
Pro-choice

I am pro-choice, because I believe that every woman has the right to her own body, and that no government or person in Congress should be allowed to make that decision for her. 1) Life doesn't begin at conception. I would argue it begins around 25 weeks, which is when brain activity is detectable. 2) The possibility for life is not life. Meaning, a fetus is a possibility for a human, not life. Just like an egg is not a chicken. 3) If abortion is murder, miscarriage should be manslaughter.
The US should adopt a revised death penalty system

The only point I will address in this final round, other than my conclusion, is the issue of appeals. The sources I cited presented appeals for lengthy prison times, hardly speeding tickets, and the groups that initiate these appeals will continue to do so, death on the table or otherwise. The number of appeals would not decrease as these organizations, the ACLU and the innocence project, will continue to exist. I will be brief as both sides have presented the main issues for the voters. Conclusion: The crux of this issue lies in the changes necessary to enact Pro's policy. Pro has all but conceded that a Constitutional Amendment would be necessary in order to preserve his policy. Policy changes, especially one requiring a constitutional change, have unintended consequences. The unintended consequence of Pro's plan is the very good chance that all defendants will get to enjoy the new burden offered by the law, not just the death penalty defendants. So long as the Court interprets the Constitution, this is a very real possibility. Any changes made in the document would simply be interpreted by the court so new amendments would not provide the result my opponent wishes. As much as some Americans do not want the courts to define its own terms, the courts will continue to do so and we should not underestimate the power of the courts in this respect. The age old battle between procedural and substantive law rages on and will continue to do so under my opponent's plan. So long as the court controls the procedural law, the new burden could very likely fall on all defendants. Such a situation is not desirable as the State would be unable to meet this heavy burden in all cases. A decrease in overall justice would result as cases without forensic evidence would not be prosecuted. When my opponent introduces a new policy, I generally take the policy and plug it into the existent laws and see how it works. Once I discovered the need for new constitutional interpretation and the courts' steadfast defense of the reasonable doubt standard, I saw the policy to troublesome. Simply adding the Constitution should be changed to allow for the new rule does not address how the new change would affect other areas of the law and our courts so in the absence of the proposed Constitutional amendment, which was never offered, or the new interpretation, we should reject the resolution.
"rape" to be or not to be a gender-specific offence

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............ So yeah, that happened... Anyway, my opponent has effectively forfeited the previous round sooooooooooooooo I really have nothing to say here, I guess since my opponent failed the deadline period that they also consider rape a non-gender specific offense, along with myself and the CIA? Or was it the FBI... I think it was the FBI- yeah it was the FBI. Anyway, I we can conclude that rape is not gender specific and get back to our lives knowing that bit of information now. Deuces.
"rape" to be or not to be a gender-specific offence

To begin, I'd like to clear the air. I do not support rape or any other acts of sexual violence and the like. My sole purpose in this debate is to prove the resolution incorrect, and the Pro team has defined the resolution as: -rape to be or not to be a gender-specific offense My opponent has taken the 'Pro' stance, stating that rape is a gender specific offense. In this debate, I will prove why rape is not a gender specific offense. 1-Providing a Definition. Source: . http://www.fbi.gov... Excerpt- The old definition was "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. " Many agencies interpreted this definition as excluding a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in most jurisdictions, such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects, and rapes of males. The new Summary definition of Rape is: "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. " Argument- It is only logical to look to an anti-crime organization such as the FBI for the definition of the word rape. As can be seen here, rape no longer just contains forcible sexual activity against females, but penetration of the vagina, the ANUS, or the MOUTH by another PERSON without victim consent. Obviously, this shows that rape is already defined as not being gender specific, allowing for both women and men to be either the rapist or the rape victim. 2- History Source: . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Excerpt 1- A Seattle prosecutor has charged 26-year-old Chantae Gilman with second-degree rape after a man reportedly awoke from a deep sleep and found her on top of him in his bed. Excerpt 2- "From a statistical standpoint, yes, it is atypical to have a female aggressor," SPD Det. Drew Fowler told the station. "But we work to hold all people responsible for their actions. The law is specifically written to be gender-equitable and we will charge anybody with a crime that they've committed. " Argument- Here we have a female being charged with rape of a male. Det. Drew Fowler even specifically stated that the law is "written to be gender-equitable. " That in itself also supports the fact that rape is not gender specific. 3- Adressing my Opponent My opponent has stated that most rape victims are women who have been raped by men. I would like to point out that even if this is true, it doesn't support the resolution provided because it doesn't prove that rape is gender specific, but that rape is generally carried out by man. Their use of the word "mostly" also shows that they acknowledge the fact that all rapes aren't only man onto women, but that most rapes are man on woman, meaning that my opponent fundamentally agrees that rape is not a gender specific offense. Conclusion- As you can see, I have provided evidence and definitions to prove that rape is not a gender specific offense and I have even shown that my opponent agrees with my points.
The Big Bang Theory Is Currently The Most Accurate Theory!

Hello, I am hoping that you will grace my challenge with an acceptance as I have genuine problems accepting the Big Bang theory. By accepting this debate I agree to the following: 1. I WILL uphold respect at all times for the affirmative team. 2. I WILL accept the written terms and agreements as posted above. I will give reasoning based on Bible verses, as I believe it is a valid book. This is the ultimate source for my Christianic belief, as I believe a six Day creation is the most Accurate theory.
The Big Bang Theory Is Currently The Most Accurate Theory!

Greetings! :)Please do not troll this debate. I will argue that the Big Bang theory is currently the most accurate theory for the description of this world. The Big Bang theory insinuates that the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, and is ever expanding. I will be defending the contemporary model of the Big Bang theory as seen by most physicists. It will be the theory enunciated by Weinberg, Hawkings, and Gates. I should inform you now that the arguments might get technical and I will be quoting from Hawkings and Gates' books, but I will summarize the arguments. The book references are for those who want proof. The opponenet does not neccessarily have to be a Creationst, s/he may support Niels Toruk, or the Solid-state theory, et cetera. They may believe that the Big Bang theory is inaccurate or largely problematic. They may of course be Creationist however please remember while respect the Bible, I will not accept arguments based on it.Rules:1. The opponent will start his argument from the first round and will forfeit the last argument by writing: "forfeiture as agreed". This is so that a proper structure is maintained. Or the opponent may use the first round for acceptance and write in his last round aswell. 2. You will be penalized (as in negative marking overall) if you do not cite sources, sources can be from books, wiki's, journals, websites. The credibility of the sources is decided of course by the voters. 3. No semantic arguments. 4. In the last argument a summary and conclusion should be presented labelling the main issues, this should be a minimum of 500 characters, ideally 1500 characters. 5. Con must provide a counter-model for the Universe and defend it with arguments. 6. The Burden of Proof is shared insofar as I must prove the Big Bang model and the opponent must prove their model. 7. If there is a forfeiture without reason, or if the opponent trolls this debate s/he will be reported and all my friends, and hopefully voters will be asked to report s/he. However if a reason is given or it occured due to some unavoidable cause we can call this debate a tie!Ajab
MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) do more good than harm.

Ok, to start off, I would like to refute your point that I am focusing on one downside to MOOCs. I am not. I was just posting a first argument to get that started; I have many more up in my sleeve. It seems as though you are aware of the low completion rate of only 10%. You stated that this is because of the students not willing to put in extra work, as you have stated. I disagree with you. Let me explain. I believe that the extremely low completion rate is not because of the students' willpower. I believe it is the MOOCs fault. Let's use a high school as an example. In high school, there are many people who are not willing to put in the extra work, who do not want to do the work. These are the people who fail high school. But, they don't dropout. The dropout rate currently, according to dosomething.org, is 7.4% for High School. For MOOCs, it's 90%. In case you didn't notice, there's a large difference between these two numbers. I believe that the reason for this is the MOOCs fault. MOOCs do not offer great education and offer necessarily quality information as you have stated. Their simple structure proves this. Watch a video and answer questions? Isn't that what a MOOC is? I don't see much learning involved in that. Also, in a MOOC, it is obvious that there is no one-on-one interaction with the teacher as I have stated. Your example with somebody helping the blind person is totally irrelevant to this topic for the reason that I have stated--there is little to no student-teacher interaction in a MOOC. Over 100,000 students cannot all have their questions answered by 1 teacher in a chat room. Yes, you may say that there can be message boards, forums, etc. However, there is still the overcrowding issue. Because of this issue, it may take days, or even weeks to have your question answered by a teacher. For your second argument, I completely agree with you actually on some parts of it. It is the student's responsibility with a MOOC, however if only 10% of students are not dropping out, then there are a lot of people in this world who are lazy and have no effort to put in the work. But, think of it. A MOOC is not necessarily that much work. You don't have to drive to school, park your car, spend valuable money on gas, walk through the hallways, and things like that. You can just sit down on the couch and take your class on your computer. Anybody can do it. So, I don't believe it's that much of a problem with willpower of the students considering it requires little to no effort physically. Here is a new argument of my own. MOOCs have and will do more harm than good because, if they become the new thing to do, they may completely replace schools. Buildings will be gone, facilities will be gotten rid of. Universities and schools will go bankrupt being replaced by these free online courses, destroying the economy. Because of this, I believe that MOOCs are/will be harmful to society. As you said, this will be an interesting debate. So far, it is shaping up to be. Good luck!