BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lower the Drinking Age from 21 to 18

I am going to begin by saying you changed your argument from legislation to saying that older adults need to set an example for young children today. So basically your way of setting a so called "example" is the "do as I say not as I do principle" because older adults that are over 21 can drink and under 21 cannot. Nevertheless you mentioned several times about our nations youth when the topic of this entire debate has been entirely about legal adults. If you want to change the age of adulthood that is an entirely different subject. I referred to under 21 adults as young adults in my earlier round merely to distinguish between the two groups to make it easier to prove my point, not so you can take it and say they are now considered youth. If our state considers them legal free adult citizens, then they should be treated as such. The parenting age for a family is 1-18, and you are making an assumption that the "parenting" age for the state to teach morality to its citizens is 1-21. So far your arguments have consisted of peer pressure, a moral obligation of one class to protect another, and you have declared 18 year old legal adults as our youth. But as you are on a constant fit of trying to have morality as the basis of your argument, I believe I have proven so far that it is indeed your argument that is in fact deeply immoral. In my case I am arguing in favor of giving a free citizen and legal adult the freedom to choose for himself, while you are arguing to take away that choice and to put it in the hands of someone else to dictate. You are in essence arguing in favor of letting another man assume the interests, the choices, and well being of another without his consent, which from different perspectives could be seen as tyranny or enslavement, if there is any real difference as the losing of ones freedom is all the same.
Lower the Drinking Age from 21 to 18

In response to that, I still think that the legal drinking age should be 21 instead of 16 or 18. We as adults should be responsible for the actions that our young people take. Also I think that the choices we as adults make should be good influences on the young people today. Being responsible means not putting pressure on our young people, Also it is not intended to put alcohol into the hands of children or young adults, especially teenagers. That is what I mean by peer pressure in our world today . You talk about liberties and choices . Is it a drunk persons choice to kill someone in a car wreck? I think not. That is someones stupidity. Peer pressure is when more than 1 person puts pressure on 1 person to drink or something they are not comfortable with doing . In Austraila the laws are more flexible so that people can get away with drinking at age 16 or 18. Here we are more strict.
Lower the Drinking Age from 21 to 18

In response to your argument that the reason we should sacrifice the liberties of free citizens due to them being more prone to pressure from other individuals, the fact remains that it is the personal liberty and responsibility of the individual to take care of ones own choices and actions. One isn't not given nor granted liberty by the advance of ones age after being declared a legal adult. Once declared a legal and voting adult all freedoms should be uniform because they are not granted by our fellow citizens, these rights are granted by being human and are not and should not be under threat to be taken away by a majority. Regardless of these truths, it can be said to refute your argument that drinking perhaps would not be such a hot topic to young adults had they been granted the freedoms that they deserve. Young adults would not be forced to sneak out and party at friends houses, they would be given a responsibility that all people should have and we would most likely see a sharp decline in peer pressure to drink due to the fact that it would no longer be illegal. Regardless of trends, we can look at this from the vantage of an individuals rights instead of collective statistics. What gives one man the right to dictate and sacrifice the liberties of another man for the sake of his security when you do not have the right nor the liberty to do so?
God

Hi, i am willing to accept the challenge of proving God's existance in one argument. Why do we have moral standards? Moral standards (right or wrong) have from something, something that is pure. If one says that thre is no standard, then there can't be a distiction between right or wrong.Our idea of morality has to come from somewhere, and where else would it come from, then not from a holy being. If we did not have morality, then we would still be using our instincts. Hunting, killing, surviving. Why is the human species the only species on Earth that relies on knowledge and not instincts?
God

My point is that clearly people have different moral standards. What I see as wrong, someone else sees as permissible. "Something perfect cannot come from someone that is not perfect." Is this even a provable claim? "We may break the standard, but that doesn't mean it will be gone." Yes, but someone can kill me for looking at them the wrong way and feel justified in doing that if it's in their culture. That's breaking my moral standards, but not theirs. They feel justified and fine. We have different standards, there is no "perfect standard". The following is tangential to our debate, but I'd like to address it anyways. "What made humans think?" Development of a more advanced brain, larger frontal lobe. "What made them give up their instincts and understand good and bad?" We never gave up our instincts, we just act rationally more often. We understand "good and bad" because of the way we are raised, and also because we have empathy so we typically don't like doing to others what we don't want done to ourselves. "Don't you think that there are just too many coincidences in this world?" No. In my previous Round, I mentioned several examples of cultural traditions that are morally acceptable in the culture of their origin, but are morally unacceptable in Western culture. Does this alone not show that there is no one "perfect" standard?
God

I get a feeling that you do not understand what moral standards are. Moral standards are actions that are understood as good or bad. You yourself have moral standards because you believe that rape and cannibalism is wrong. People may do something wrong, but that is our sinful nature. Moral standards are perfect, there is right and wrong, and that is truth. Something perfect cannot come from someone that is not perfect. We may break the standard, but that doesn't mean it will be gone. The moral standard is help by the perfect one, the holy on, which is God. Moral standards don't mean actions, they means understanding. We acknowledge that there is good or bad. You said why it could not come from human genes. Easy. What made humans think? What made them give up their instincts and understand good and bad? Don't you think that there are just too many coincidences in this world? Source: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...
God

Thank you for your argument. Your argument is basically that there are universal moral standards, unique to humans, which had to have to come from somewhere, God being the most likely/logical source. I will contest this claim in two ways. Firstly, I don't see any evidence for a universal morality. We see people raping, killing, pillaging, torturing, stealing and destroying the lives of others for personal gain or to be rewarded in the afterlife. Where is this universal morality you speak of? I'm assuming you find all of the above mentioned things to be "morally bad". Even if you don't, that only furthers my point that there's no universal moral standard because our standards differ. Every society has different moral standards, some people find death penalty to be just, others don't. Societies existed (and probably still exist) where cannibalism is a totally acceptable practice. There are societies where rape as a form of punishment for a crime is acceptable. Where is this universal morality you speak of? It varies from society to society, one time period to another. Secondly, I'd like to contest your claim that a holy being is the most logical/only place these "moral standards" come from. Even assuming that there are universal moral standards, why must they be a result of holy intervention? Why couldn't they be the result of a human gene? Or upbringing? I'm afraid I don't see any evidence for "universal moral standards", and even they did exist, I don't see why they must be the result of anything supernatural. I curiously await your response.
Captialism Is Good

What I am saying is the redistribution of wealth is tantamount to building a fairer society. Without going into my political and economic aspirations, the system is broken and the already wealthy are exploiting everyone below them creating an ever increasing inequality gap by doing the very thing your proposing we all should do. I have visions of a Dickensian style Distopian future were we all keep what we earn whilst the world around us falls into a decay of broken health services, street sweepers rusting in a ditch, and orphaned children roaming the streets in search of food all because you kept what you earned and did not give some to someone else. We all have to pay our way to maintain society. We all have to work together. Call it an all inclusive ticket to cohesion. It does not necessarily mean more government, although, if governments were what they are supposed to be and that is our servants and not try to be our rulers then i"m sure more government would be fine. Actually the more people with power would mean the power is not centralized like it is now, making it much less corrupting. Why should the private sector grow to give more money to the government if we should all keep what we get? No more government jobs will create more jobs, i don"t see which social and economic structures are at risk. Can you elaborate? More government in the conventional way does equal less freedom, i agree completely, however, imagine a world in which we were all part of the government, all with equal say in how the country should be run, now wouldn"t that be better?
Captialism Is Good

How can someone with no means of funding an education or having social capital ever get ahead in the hyper competitive job market or achieve social mobility? When using capitalism you get a fraction of what you should get and have to pay a ridiculous amount of money to government anyway reducing most chance of social mobility anyway. Setting a limit on how much you can keep for yourself isn't capitalism. You do not, keep what you earn, I say this in the verbatim, you get a fraction of what you should get and have to pay a ridiculous amount of money to government. What we need is a truly egalitarian meritocracy, redistribution of the money hoarded by the richest 1-2% back into social spending to improve the infrastructure of whatever capitalist society you are from. Its simple.
We should take action against Global Warming

Ever notice nobody can win or lose a global warming debate? There is just too much conflicting information out there. Luckily this is not a debate about global warming, but whether we know for certain which side is correct so that we might take action. Let's talk about what we do know. 1) There are convincing arguments from QUALIFIED scientists on both sides who have come to opposing conclusions. 2) Neither you nor I are qualified to confidently refute scientists on either side. 3) There IS an ongoing debate with regard to global warming theory. 4) That debate is not settled just because Al Gore said it is in his movie. In summary: It is absurd (not to mention arrogant) to think the general public (or Al Gore) has the expertise or information available to accurately pick a side on this. There are just too many credible scientists who disagree with the "consensus." http://www.speroforum.com... Since we aren't anywhere close to knowing for certain which side is correct, there is no GOOD REASON to TAKE ACTION, especially if temperature changes haven't exceeded anything occurring naturally in the past. That is the focus of this debate. And to win this debate you will need to convince the readers the debate is over, the GW crowd has won, and that you are qualified to make that decsicion. Good luck with that one.
We should take action against Global Warming

Looking at the first five paragraphs... you essentially agree and repeat what I've said. You provide a link that doesn't work. (says "Service Unavailable) Nothing to respond to. #6 You claim that some scientists disagree on what affects the weather. That's not really an argument. You point out that some people are saving the world from CO2. I'm sure some do, however, if I recall correctly: - Americans on average produce 20 tonnes of CO2 per year - Europeans produce ~10 tonnes - Chinese 3 tonnes - Africans produce less than 1 tonne per year on average. We are producing far (far) more than we save. Next you declare that a 0.6 degree increase in temperature is "a subtle effect". This has been enough melt over half the Arctic's summer ice, and open up the Northwest Passage for the first time in history. If you consider that "subtle effect", I would hate to see a "moderate effect". #7 You quote me #8 You agree that Earth's climate changes in response to forces. Then you suggest that natural forces may act to reverse the trend, but you don't say what these could be. You tell us that the some people in the past have claimed we were suffering from global cooling. So what? I know a man who believes the world is flat. Lastly you claim "science IS skepticism". No, it isn't. #9 You quote me again #10 You claim that "nothing is really known at all". I really should ridicule you about this, however I think that is a detestable debating practice. Instead I will try again to make it clear to you: We know that some gasses heat when hit by infra-red radiation. We know (with great precision) how much they respond. We know these things just as surely as I know that if you drive off a cliff you will fall. Do you deny any of these things? We can accurately measure the proportion of greenhouse gasses there are. We can accurately measure the amount of radiation reaching the Earth's surface to heat these gasses. Thus we know the degree of temperature forcing. This is the force that you have admitted will change the climate. Because it's positive, we are experiencing Global Warming. The World is not homogenous. The land masses are uneven, the clouds, winds and ocean currents can make large local changes. Ocean currents can carry heat below the surface or bring it up. This changes the average global temperature (el Nino or la Nina). These deviations from average are of course temporary. On average, if more heat is held within our atmosphere, it must heat. It's as simple as that. This heating will mean less life and a worse world. If we don't want that, we must take action.
We should take action against Global Warming

Globally, we have had about 100 years of warming. The global temperature has increased over 0.6 degrees C in this time. (for significance, if it had dropped 1 degree C, this would be an ice-age.) There is a clear and obvious trend. http://en.wikipedia.org... Why is the world warming? The cause is almost certainly the greenhouse gasses, e.g. CO2, NO2 and CH4. CO2 was shown to be a greenhouse gas by John Tyndall in 1859. It's a very easy experiment. Shine heat into a volume of gas, see if it heats. Up until 100 years ago, CO2 was 280ppm of air. We burnt forest, coal and oil in vast quantities. Air now contains CO2 is now over 385ppm. http://en.wikipedia.org... We should not be surprised. We are essentially living in a bottle. Things happen for a reason. As Issac Newton demonstrated, an object either sits still, or continues moving in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. The Earth's atmosphere also obeys the laws of physics. It changed in the past as grasses appeared and coal and oil were laid down, and it is responding to forces today. Our forces. (e.g. humans produce 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes http://en.wikipedia.org...) Warming is a bad thing. Life adapts to change, but the hot deserts of the world are never as productive as their wetter counterparts. Warmer oceans are far less productive. The World is less productive. Clearly, we don't want starvation that must result. Few of us are happy with being even slightly poorer. It's sensible to act when one has knowledge of a threat. We have this knowledge. We know the trend. We know that greenhouse gasses are largely responsible. http://en.wikipedia.org... We know of few negating factors and many (many) positive reinforcing factors e.g. the melting of the highly reflective Arctic and the thawing of tundra that will release yet more greenhouse gas. This planet is our life-support-system. There is nothing more important to life as a whole. That's why we should take action against Global Warming.
We should take action against Global Warming

"There is clear evidence that the world is warming." And cooling. It always has warmed and cooled, and probably always will. The earth's climate is in a constant state of change. That's nature. "There is no reason to believe it won't continue warming." We do have historical evidence the the globe warms and cools without any help from us. Is this solid evidence that the earth will begin cooling again? Absolutely not. Can one use this historical evidence to make a better argument than those who claim the earth will now break from its natural pattern simply because it is currently in a state of warming? Absolutely. Scientists cannot see the future, and any current trend is no evidence of its longevity. Had we been around during previous warming and cooling periods, there would be no way to foretell impending reversals in climate change. And still today, there is no way to tell. No scientist will refute that fact. If we stick with history (versus fortune telling) as an indicator of future climate activity, we can expect many more climate swings in each direction for millions of years to come. "This will be disastrous for many people and other species in the world." Regardless of what disasters lie ahead, there is no solid evidence that human beings cause a significant amount of global warming. Therefore, we are not able to know for sure if any change in our behavior will counter the phenomenon. Although the environmentalists got up from the debate table and walked away claiming they've "arrived at a consensus," the debate is not over. We should not act unless we know. It is not enough to suspect and defend an uncertain position simply because there is no evidence to the contrary. "Therefore it is hypocritical and unethical not to act against it." I'm for action in response to knowledge, but not in response to unsubstantiated claims. If George Bush had the same philosophy we would not have invaded Iraq.
Are beauty pageants good for today"s children

A 2007 report by the American pshylogical association shows that the hypersexulazation of these young girls Is strongly associated with eating disorders low self esteem and depresion . We shouldent bring these things on young children by having them do these pagents. To much hair spray can stunt growth a beauty pageant and looking pretty shouldent be at the expense of there health. Some young parent girls who wear high heals in pagents May end up having to continue to wear high heals outside of pagents because there feet have grown a certain way from wearing the shoes that other shoes are uncomfortable. http://theweek.com...
was germany responsible for the second world war

I feel Germany is not responsible for the second world war. Though many historians argue the Hitler's unstoppable greed for more land dragged the countries into war. I personally feel that it was the Allies and the failure of the League of Nations that caused the second world war. At every point in time the Allies had the chance to stop the war. For example, during the militarization of Rhineland, France and Britain who had the power to stop them, however, it was Britain's laid back attitude which caused the loss of Rhineland.
was germany responsible for the second world war

I understand your point better now but I still disagree. I will address your points directly. "The main cause, Treaty of Versailles. England and France were both insecure of the land Germany had and the the strength of the military. Their insecurity led to the dreaded Treaty of Versailles which sowed the seeds of the second world war." I do agree that the Treaty of Versailles was an influence in Germany's aggression prior to WWII. I would imagine that the Germans were not happy about accepting full responsibility the the first world war. However, their aggression was still the source of war. Germany, although they had a reason for invading Poland, didn't need to invade. The conditions given to Germany through the treaty didn't leave them with no choice but to capture neighboring territories with military force. They still invaded, so they really started the war. "Another cause of the second world war is that the League of Nations failed in maintaining peace. Examples: When the Japanese invaded China, the league had two choices: to gather the league army and stop them or stop trade. At that time leaders felt that any use of force would result in war. Since no one wanted to stop trading, the Japanese succeeded in what they wanted to do... As you see, the world war started by Germany began in 1939 but the one the Japanese started was in the early 1930's." You are correct with your history. The Japanese had been fighting in Asia for some time before WWII officially started. However, the world wasn't at war then. The fighting between the Japanese in Manchuria was only with China. This war was isolated and no one was getting involved. The world war began when Germany invaded Poland and England and France declared war. At that point everybody got involved. Also, I had mentioned that the war in Asia and the war in Europe were two different wars. Many historians agree. "In the 1930s, both countries adopted aggressive militaristic attitudes toward their respective regions. This led to a rapprochement and, eventually, a political and military alliance that included Italy: the "Axis". During the Second World War, however, the Axis was limited by the great distances between the Axis powers; for the most part, Japan and Germany fought separate wars, and eventually surrendered separately [2]." I use this as an example because it shows how isolated the wars were. So saying that the Japanese started WWII is a very poor argument. I think it should be apparent that Germany caused WWII. Thank you.Sources1) http://www.slate.com... 2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
was germany responsible for the second world war

I fully agree with your point pro. But have taken a glance or tried to find the reason of Germany's reason for aggression. The main cause, Treaty of Versailles. England and France were both insecure of the land Germany had and the the strength of the military. Their insecurity led to the dreaded Treaty of Versailles which sowed the seeds of the second world war. Another cause of the second world war is that the League of Nations failed in maintaining peace. Examples: When the Japanese invaded China, the league had two choices: to gather the league army and stop them or stop trade. At that time leaders felt that any use of force would result in war. Since no one wanted to stop trading, the Japanese succeeded in what they wanted to do. As you see, the world war started by Germany began in 1939 but the one the Japanese started was in the early 1930's.