BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be allowed free for women 21 and over not any age younger.

Yes, some teenagers are irresponsible. But say you rule the world and get your way, and a 16 year old girl gets raped is now pregnant with a child she isn't ready for and she can't do anything about it, since you rule the world and she isn't allowed to have an abortion. Now she drops out of school, and the girl who was once going to be a doctor is now a 16 year old mom who stays at home and eventually marries an abusive husband. So maybe that's a little extreme but situations like that do happen and the teens involved are tremendously affected in a very bad way.
Abortion should be allowed free for women 21 and over not any age younger.

On my screen it clearly says that you have forfeited that round. Maybe it was the teens' decision to have sex, but the pregancy may still not be their fault. If the condom was faulty but they were trying to have safe sex, why would it be their fault? Also, what else can they do? It's a catch-22: teen parents are looked down if they have their kid, and if they have an abortion! They deserve the right to have the abortion, and get help with it to! Teenagers are more likely to not have a job or enough money to be pay for it, while an adult is more likely to have a job and be able to pay for an abortion.
THBT School Holidays Should Be Longer

Let me begin with the fact that vacations are put in place for the full purpose because of their ability to reduce stress. The reason school vacations are their is because of many other reasons than this, but this is the main point. Just know that most of these reasons don't matter as much as that one. I have many points but I will spread them out across the rounds to let my opponent respond to my points. 1. Cortisol and other chemicals released by stress are extremely bad. Cortisol is a chemical produced in our brain when we are experiencing stress, and has a downright horrible effect on the brain, especially on young minds, the kind that would be going to school. Excess cortisol exposure during childhood can hinder or even stop brain development in kids, and cause permanent damage to their immune system. The more cortisol someone is exposed to during youth, the higher chance they have of developing osteoporosis, causes acne, and can even lead to Cushing's Disease. Plus, it leads to high blood pressure, which contributes to a higher risk of stroke, heart disease, and other cardiovascular events later in life. 2. Stressed Kids It is common knowledge that children and teenagers who are stressed and overworked have lower school performance than kids who were not stressed. Also, as everyone knows, stress leads to sleep deprivation, which has a whole host of negative connotations, associated with further lowered school performance, high blood pressure, suicides, Diabetes, heart disease, ADHD-like effects, immune system impairment, memory loss, irritability, growth suppression, and an increased risk of becoming obese. You could even connect the childhood obesity epidemic with increased stress in school, though you can take what you want from that.
Prostitution should be legal in all countries!

The obvious dark side of prostitution is the underground sex-trade. Let’s start by differentiating between myth and fact. Prostitution is often presented as an “American coming of age” right of passage. The urban legend of the doting hooker, who takes gives the 15 year old high school virgin his first taste of a real woman, has been glorified on TV and shown in a comical, harmless light. Truthfully, between 12 to 57 percent of streetwalking women are HIV positive. The AIDS epidemic is not only common amongst prostitutes, the virus is taking steroids and doing push-ups while your kids are being indoctrinated into a sexually over-exposed culture. Another myth of prostitution is the idea that prostitutes are sex-crazed nymphos who love a good time. According to the department of Justice, of the 1,229 reported task-force incidents between 2007 and 2008, 83% of the prostitutes where forced into sexual slavery. Nothing more needs to be said on this subject. Yet another common myth is, that legalized prostitution is victimless. The UNDOC listed the Netherlands as the primary destination for underground sex trade slaves. The sex-slave trade is operated by organized crime, which victimizes anywhere between 2000 to 7000 women and children every year. In 2008, the worst case of sex slavery was made public in the Netherlands, when a gang of 6 pimps was arrested for violently forcing 100+ women to perform sex acts. Conclusion: Legalizing does not make it better, it gives criminal organizations an endless supply of victims. Prostitution harms the family, the society, the customer and the vendor. The only benefit is a brief moment of gratification, most always followed by severe consequences. References: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov...... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Young Celebrities and/or Entertainers Are Responsible For Their Actions

Young Celebrities such as the ones listed by my opponent should not be held fully responsible due to the fact that, although all of us are equal before the law their conditions are not equal in terms of how much attention they have from multiple communication medias and if they where held accountable for every action that was released in the news they would have lots of more troubles. Modern communication media, the fact that young celebrities right to privacy (that is protected under multiple constitutions worldwide and the universal declaration of human rights) is violated and the fact that as minors they cannot be responsible for all of their actions (due to the fact that they continue to be dependent on their parents and also are regulated by them) and the fact that as celebrities they work as an adult human being proves they don't have a "normal" civilian life.
Young Celebrities and/or Entertainers Are Responsible For Their Actions

Entertainers such as Lindsey Lohan, Justin Bieber and Amanda Bynes are just like anyone else out there. Besides their money, and fame, they are equal to us. They should be held accountable for their actions, if someone down the street is. Why should someone like Justin Bieber not receive the punishment I may, only because of his fame and popularity. It's like being sexist. A specific gender, or group of people are treated differently than the rest. Legally, once you hit the age of 12, you know the difference between right and wrong, meaning all those celebrities and entertainers should be held accountable for their actions. It is their choice and therefore they chould handle.
Catholic churches

I assure my opponent the pleasure is all mine. I know a lot of people hold views similar to that of my opponent, and as always on a topic such as this learning more than what you previously knew is beneficial. Enjoy your time here on DDO, Con. Hopefully you enjoyed this debate as much as I did (no forfeits! yay!)Contention 1 The church leaders are not rich men. Religious clergy in the Catholic Church take vows of poverty, celibacy, and poverty. Even the Vatican, which is in charge of over a billion faithful Catholics throughout the world, operates on a budget equal to that of the City of Chicago. Anyway, like I said, there's no way that they could use the money vested in the construction of churches for charity. It's already been used, and they can't unuse it. Contention 2 The point of the churches aren't to show off to the public, it's to make sacrifices for God. You donate your money to the church, the church doesn't collapse and continues to look nice, and you have made a sacrifice. It's not the only proof that you truly put God first. Remember the story in Matthew 26:7-8, where a woman pours ointment on Jesus. Pretty much, the disciples complain that the ointment was valuable and should have been sold for money to give to the poor, but Jesus rebukes them saying that the woman has done a good thing. This is fine. I also contend that the Old Testament is not irrelevant, as evidenced by the constant quoting of it by atheists. Contention 3My opponent asserts that the total enjoyment by the public does not really compensate for the total cost of building and maintenance. I assert that it does, especially for the poor. It gives them an opportunity to enjoy splendid art and architecture that normally would be costly or much more difficult. Contention 4I do not know by what standard my opponent defines a perfect Christian. The reason churches generally cost so much is because they are built/redesigned with materials specifically meant to reduce maintenance costs. So at first it looks really bad that so much is being spent, but it pays for itself in time. The older buildings specifically need maintenance because they're old; in general newer buildings do not require high maintenance. Not a terrible number of new churches are being built. While I don't doubt that my opponent's schemes for alternate usage of the money are generally worthy goals, the money cannot be recovered. It's stuck in the building. We can't get it back out. We also can't let the buildings collapse, so we have to upkeep them. Nothing can be done. In conclusion, the Catholic Church's spending of money on construction is acceptable. Thanks Con, for a great debate.
Catholic churches

First off, let me welcome my opponent to Debate.org (DDO). I wish him a long and productive period here, and feel like a right jerk for Round 1.I assume that that by churches, my opponent also means Cathedrals and Basilicas and stuff like that.My Case:Contention One: Catholics already have plenty of charitable organizationsCatholic charities are numerous, and consistently rated highly for their efforts to improve living conditions of many. CharityWatch rates Catholic Relief Services with an A+, and Catholic Charities USA is the second highest provider of social services in the United States (after the Federal government) and was ranked second largest nonprofit organization in the US [1][2][3]. It is generally agreed that the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. Plenty of effort is already being used for charitable reasons, and as I will detail further churches are too important to cut.Contention Two: Catholic churches are by necessity gloriousWhat Catholics are called to do is to put God first and themselves second. Therefore, it makes sense that the buildings we build for the praise of God be beautiful and of high quality. Ideally, churches should be better furnished than homes. When you have a some little shed as your church, that says something about what you think of God. For instance, look at the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, and the Temple. Many valuable materials were used to construct those things, because they were for God. It is the same with Catholic churches today.Contention Three: Public enjoymentAnyone can enjoy the splendor of Catholic churches. Even if you have no money, you can still enter beautiful places like Westminster Cathedral. The elegance of the Catholic churches can even be enjoyed by non-Catholics, and you need no money to do so. How often does a poor person find themselves able to afford a visit to such spectacular sights? Catholic churches are free.Contention Four: What else do we do with them?As my opponent is proposing a change in the status quo, I believe it is up to him to show what could otherwise be done. A lot of the money spent on churches is upkeep; but these churches are often of great cultural and historical value and cannot be allowed to fail. We have to keep the churches operational, as they are in use. We cannot keep them operational without spending money on them. They already exist and are consecrated, so we can't just sell them off or anything. We must keep them.I thank my opponent for making this debate and wish him luck.Sources:1. http://www.charitywatch.org...;2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;3. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com...;
Catholic churches

So basically, I don't see any worthy benefits of spending a lot of money on the appearance of the churches, therefore, I see this as an irresponsible use of money. This is also against Catholic belief, so this makes the Catholics hypocrites in this respect. I am not saying I am against churches. It makes sense to have a religious place of gathering. They are, however, used for the wrong causes. In the Bible, Jesus teaches the people how to pray; he states "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. ". This is stated At the beginning of "Matthew 6". Nowadays, people go to the church to pray, but in this passage, it is stated NOT to do that. It is also stated in the bible that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. " in "Mark 10:25". This shows the principle of irresponsible use of money. If someone is rich, then they have a lot of spare money, this money is not being used for a good cause. This is the same case as the Catholic churches. It is the religious leaders who are making these decisions as to how much to spend on the appearance of the church. This appearance is not beneficial, as is the money in a rich person's bank account. These are the people who are meant to be close followers of the Bible, yet they are dis-obeying some of the simple rules. At no point in the Bible does it say anything to the effect of; A grand-designed church will help to connect with God. The appearance of the churches is something which was completely decided by the Catholics themselves. This was one of the many reasons that Protestants came along. How come the Catholic churches continue to use the money to make the churches look nice, instead of using it for a charity of some sort?
Catholic churches

Hi, I am not a Christian but I live in the UK, so I do read about it occasionally and Christians believe that money should be spent responsibly and not wasted, yet if you look at the Catholic churches, they have very expensive designs and decorations which are not beneficial, I see this as using money irresponsibly. The way I would like this debate to work would be: Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Your main points Round 3 - Contradicting each other's idea So long story short, I don't think that the Catholic churches should be using so much money on the appearance of the churches. Thank you to whoever accepts the debate, I appreciate it a lot. Good luck.
Transformer is getting old

Ok so Transformer was the cartoon every kid watched when they were young. Then Michael Bay the master of explosions wants to make Transformers. The first movie was a great movie but really after that movie they kinda just got boring know why all I see is the same dang thing every movie and every thing just gets old after a while. The story line just gets weak and the same thing happens Megatron dies then comes back to life I mean just stay dead and make a new villain. I saw the new Transformer the best part was the fight scenes and the cars. That's it because all the humans we're had a IQ of a 5 year old and the only good human was Mark Walberg. Plus the way Megatron is getting the army is getting pretty old. First movie that was his army next movie from the Falling, next movie from the portal of cybertron, last one the humans made his army i don't wAnna see 2 more movies of this I mean yes it made over a 100 million in one weekend very good but if you did a head count guarantee more people are like why did I waste my money then oh yes great movie money well spent I mean Transformers should have stayed at three movies not six!!
14 Year olds who have been convicted in adult court of 1st degree murder should be sent to adult

Those who are 25-30 are capable of handling themselves in prison because of their physical demeanor. They are much stronger, and more capable of handling themselves than a 14 year old. And while that part of their brain is not fully developed, other parts of their brain are for more developed than a 14 year olds. You are a minor until you are 18, and that age was not simply set because it sounds like a nice number. It's a huge developmental turning point, both in the brain and body. Moving on, children in adult penitentiaries hurts not only the children, but also the society. What does it say about the society we live in, who would rather sentence a child who doesn't fully understand the repercussions of his actions, to an adult prison where they would more than likely kill themselves, or commit worse crimes because of how easily influenced they can be at such a young age? The 14 year old should be given a sentence of four years in the juvenile system, then transferred when they are actually able to not only defend themselves in adult prison, but also better understand their actions, at the age of 18.
14 Year olds who have been convicted in adult court of 1st degree murder should be sent to adult

Good rebuttal. IF the brain does not fully develop judgement until the ages 25-30, then those under that age (including 14 year olds) should be treated equally due to an immature and underdeveloped frontal lobe. It is constitutional. The Eighth Amendment states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The sentencing of a 14 year old to adult prison is not a cruel or unusual punishment for the crime. The crime, first-degree murder, is defined as, "an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning for the victim." Pre-meditated murder is enough to argue for being punished in adult prison. It is not wrong to send teenagers who are 14 years old and committed first-degree murders to adult prisons.
14 Year olds who have been convicted in adult court of 1st degree murder should be sent to adult

In a juvenile prison, the child would still be punished for their actions and crimes, however they would be treated exactly as they are: a fourteen year old child. The adults that they would look up to would help them understand the punishment they've been sentenced while also guiding them to the right path, instead of encourage them to protect themselves in a prison of adults. According to an article in Harvard Magazine, titled "The Teen Brain," two scientists (Frances E. Jensen and David K. Urion) at both Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School who have been exploring the structure and chemistry in adolescent brains, state that "the brain is only about 80 percent developed in adolescents." The cortex (the largest part) matures form back to front, and is divided into lobes. The last section to merge and develop, which happens between the ages of 25-30, is the frontal lobe which is responsible for cognitive process such as reasoning, planning, and judgement. From this research, it's only natural to assume fourteen year olds are not capable of understanding the repercussions of their actions. Which translates to that in prison, this child will have a higher chance of committing more crimes from being influenced by the older prisoners, even though because of their age they cannot understand what the punishments would be, and be treated the same as an adult who would actually understand. A child would not know, without proper guidance, how to survive in prison. According to the NY Times article, "In Prison, Teens Become Prey," "Youth advocacy groups report that juveniles housed in adult facilities are 36 times more likely to commit suicide." While youths should be jailed for committing serious and heinous crimes, they should not be forced to commit more crimes, or worse, kill themselves, because of the harsh environment of adult prisons.
14 Year olds who have been convicted in adult court of 1st degree murder should be sent to adult

Living in adult prison as a 14 year old is a much better way to punish a murderer. They were old enough to commit this disgusting crime so they are able to spend adult time. Different people cope and react to spending time in prison in different ways. The underground violent environment that exists is not the only environment for prisoners to live in. A 2000 Texas study found that youth in adult prisons had about a 30% lower recidivism rate than those who did time in the juvenile system. Adult prison is not just a violent culture.
14 Year olds who have been convicted in adult court of 1st degree murder should be sent to adult

I am against 14 year olds convicted of first-degree murders doing time in adult prisons. A 14 year old's brain is not nearly as developed as even an 18 year old's, therefore they should first be sent to juvenile court, then transferred when they reach the age of 18. Sending them to an adult prison gives the possibility of causing more harm; children are influenced by their environments, and if that 14 year old was placed in an adult penitentiary, it would encourage them to become more violent, as they would look up to the adult prisoners that protect themselves through intimidation. A child should not be sent to an environment that would cause more harm than progress.
Poetry Competition

Shell Shocked. There is a shadow following close behind me. It mocks me with every error, or deed no matter how great. Teasing me with hollow pointed phrases in its revolving chamber. The words leading me onto a path that leads down a beaten path, well used. Often it was said by the shadow that, "Running from your fears will always leave you exhausted and frightened." I see now that you can't run from your fears, only face them head on. The shadow, jerks in my hand. Looking down my hand trembling like a blur. No sounds, no sight, the shadow beckons for me to accept the quiet. In this path I stand, sitting down. How could I have been lead so far to nothing? Why do I insist on my own self deprivation, slowly searing my own nerves to desolation? The chambers calling my name, echoing through my head. I beckon for any aid, but the call in vain. My hand blurred; as everything else is, I lock the barrel in my closed teeth. No breathing, the heart skips a beat as the sun on the horizon peaks. The trigger slips, echoing through the land with a silent click. The sun drops, the clouds take reign. The heavens weep over the actions of the shadow. Slowly slipping backward, slamming into the path shaking the ground once walked. Slowly the liquid flows out, rushing as the rivers I once ran. Seeing stars vanish under me, the ground above appears as the dark. Stamping the embers that hold my ties to the earth, slowly sour tears drip from my empty eyes. Cold, alone, forgotten. I lay once a broken one, only to be reborn a dead man. The shadows cackle loudly, holding me in a tight embrace. Why did I do that? One wrong choice to fall through the cracks of my lucid memories. No more will the sun warm, or the rain feel. All is gone, only to rest forever more. Drawing the breath of death, I live stronger than before. Thats my poem, vote Con. ^.=.^