BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

I still do not understand what you mean by the term "equal footing", you have also stated the fact what would require an individual to be indebted to someone else. If you take how you defined the difference between a balance and debt, Williams would certainly fall under debt as shortly after the second exchange she entered in she defaulted and stopped making payments. As for the term "Debtors" as you state "once again anticipating for all their purchasers to go into default" is absurd, the term "debtor" is used in finance contracts such as loans and finances such as scenarios like this to distinguish the receiving party from the lending party. This term is in no way a condescending term used in a contract to presume default or inability to pay back. When I used to the term "can be subject to arrest" I used it in the context that the law has to be written that way because depending on the circumstance there can be a scenario where the officer would warrant an arrest and there would be a scenario where the officer would not want to arrest the person. That phrase allows for the discretion to be possible, for instance, in this case "could be repossessed" if a client could not afford the monthly payments assigned to their exchange, instead of stopping payments in full, reasoned with Thomas-Walker and asked either for the monthly payments to be lowered or given a minor grace period because of good faith, they have the discretion to use whether to exercise or not exercise repossession under the contract. When an individual enters into a contract asking to be given financial opportunity such as financing, we as a society grant, even understand that the counter parties of these contracts are able to give the financial opportunity because of the leverage of option in this case, "could repossess". If all business contracts such as the one given to Williams by Thomas-Walker were not ambiguous at all and in fact put in complete specific layman terms, there would be situations where an individual can default and get away with it. When I say get away with it I mean stop paying and still possess the items simultaneously that, in my opinion will be opening up scenarios of "unfairness". As for your example about entering a two year contract with a phone company, yes most people are aware of what it means to enter a two year agreement. However there are underlying principles in those contracts that are not full elaborated to an individual instead they may be given to you in a familiar form such as a large document in fine print over the computer with a small box to check at the end acknowledging that you agree to the terms. These fine print underlying principles have many different conditions to the contract that individuals such as myself were never briefed on by my cell phone service provider.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

Pro Round 4 I am not disputing two contracts. They are one in the same. As to your terminology of debt and balance let us be care how we use this two words, while they may appear interchangeable they are not. A balance is an amount that is remained over of equal footing. Therefore Williams was in good standing to Walker-Thomas. To be in debt which we have commonly use the term, is to fail to maintain the necessary payment of something. Key word here being "failed" Therefore, Williams did not have a "debt", she had a balance, in which she was indebted (financial obligation) to. The ambiguity in the contract is stated on ( 511.2.). It was though Walker-Thomas, classified all purchasers as "debtor(s)", (once again anticipating for all their purchasers to go into default), instead of indebtors, having a financial obligation . Focusing on the language "could repossess" gives you an option or better yet the possibility to do something, thus making it subjective, this brings to light the "unconscionable" contract. You provided me with an example of a cop making an arrest, as stated by you ""can be subject to arrest". The operative word here is "can" which is objective term. Proceeding with your example of "can be subject to arrest", perhaps this is why NYS stop and frisk policy is so controversial; every Latino and Black American male fits this objective term. As business invitee, Walker-Thomas had the duty of explaining the terms of the contract to Williams. If would be like purchasing a phone unaware of the terms of a two year contract. You cannot walk into a store and just sign a contract without being aware of the plan you are obliging to.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

Pro Round 3 I think you are reaching beyond the point. There was never two different contracts, the contract at hand is the standard contacted used in all business transactions. As too the issue of contradiction, as stated, when she contracted with the previous items Walker-Thomas would have sought to replevy these item(s) if she defaulted. Provide the evidence of "more debt". Why sought to replevy all items now, when the contract states "could repossess"? Please keep in mind that only the second contract listed her government assistance of $218, in which she ""clothe, feed and supported herself on this amount" (512.2.6). This is evidence of unequal bargaining power. While Williams may have been the sole purpose of the choice, did she understand the contract or did an employee of Walker-Williams explain the ambiguity in this section of the contract? This is a question we are unsure of. Yes, Williams had a "meaningful choice", because the stereo was not a necessity; however the meaningful choice is based on "major differences in bargaining power between the parties". Here the bargaining power is that the contract provided no equal footing. Please provide where in the contract there is equal bargaining power.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

Your argument contradicts in the fact that in round one of the debate you stated that Williams had to be in the view of good standing with Walker-Thomas. Now you state that Walker-Thomas took the deal in an anticipation of default (which would not be good standing). Those two conditions are mutually exclusive and cannot both be possible at the same time. Also, please note that not only was Williams never a principle owner of the first contract she was under as there, but she was the direct cause of why more debt was incurred upon her. The "substantial" amount that you state in round two was not the total amount, which under her contract was required for the title of ownership to be transferred over. As far as the definition of an unconscionable contract, let"s apply it to the facts of this case. As far as Williams having "no real, meaningful choice" she was the sole purpose of the choice, she decided to take on more debt, this was accepted by Walker-Thomas because she was in good faith making the monthly payment. What do you mean by the contention of the contract? Are these contracts that always have a similar result? As far as the contract being unfair and as you claim she appeared to be fine paying a "substantial amount" on the first contract, why is the first contract viewed as fair and the second as unfair? The only difference between contract one and two is an action caused by Williams defaulting on her payments. Please keep in mind that this type of business constantly deals with renting and financing situations as these, and that all contracts given are the same, just as the first and second contracts are the same. The choice to incur more debt for a non-necessity item was at the discretion of Williams, because of past relations Walker-Thomas did not see this as a bad business deal and assumed Williams would continue the monthly installments as usual. So if contract one worked fine, who is the cause of contract two being questionable? If it was really a concern with the contract itself wouldn"t there be many complaints for more customers as many of them are receiving the same contracts? To finalize, as per your last statement that Walker-Thomas had a great degree of bargaining power, are you referring to bargaining power as leverage? If so, what leverage did they have over Williams? This must be a condition that applies to both the first and second purchases as they were under the same contract.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

Pro Round 2 An unconscionable contract is one that is so one-sided that it is unfair to one party and therefore unenforceable under law. It is a type of contract that leaves one party with no real, meaningful choice, usually due to major differences in bargaining power between the parties.* The issue of Williams 7 children is neither here nor there in the contention of the contract. However, if you want to make this one highlight in the debate, let us look at all her circumstances. 1. Walker-Thomas was aware that she had 7 children. 2. Walker-Thomas was aware of the government stipend she received monthly. Walker-Thomas was aware of these circumstances and still proceeded to contract with her. It appears that Walker-Thomas contracted with her expecting her to default so that they can repossess all items, which made the contract a for profit contract. Inasmuch they already received a substantial about of money from her. (footnote 1. page 513). These circumstances alone show that Walker-Thomas contract is unfair. Furthermore, the text does not evidence if they explained the ambiguous language of the contract. Given this, it shows that Walker-Thomas had a great degree of bargaining power. *www.legalmatch.com
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

1)As per the contract, the title owners of purchased items shall remain with Walker-Thomas until total balance was paid off. (511.1.4) 2)Williams still had an outstanding balance while the new debt was incurred; those items were not paid off (title of ownership never moved) leaving Williams liable for complete repossession. (511.2.4) 3)Williams defaulted on payments, Walker-Thomas as per the contract sought to repossess all items. (511.3.4) 4)Since Williams never fully paid off any balances, and was the sole purpose for inflicting more debt upon herself, she was never a principle owner. Therefore Walker-Thomas righteously seeks total repossession. Walker-Thomas is just for seeking full repossession, as per the contract signed by Williams they acknowledge that title of principle owner does not shift until a total balance is paid off. Williams, who already had an outstanding balance voluntarily engaged in a second exchange, leaving her as the independent variable to increasing her balance. As for the client being in good standing with the company that"s why this is not a bad business deal on behalf of Walker-Thomas, although they were aware of her responsibilities at home and raising seven children, at the end of the day she was making her monthly payments. If Williams could not keep up with the new payments, it is the negligence on her part to distinguish necessity from non-necessity, which I feel we can all agree that buying a stereo is a non-necessity when you are raising seven children on government assistance. Can you please define how the contract is unconscionable in the context of Williams? Walker-Thomas who engaged in the second deal because as of that point Williams was in good standing with the furniture company. Although Walker-Thomas was aware of Williams financial situation that does not make this a bad deal because as far as they knew because of previous relations, Williams would continue her payments as she did in the past. If she could not handle the payments and engaged in this second contract knowingly and voluntarily increasing her balance, this is negligence to her financial stability.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

Pro Round 1 1.The language in the contract, "Walker Thomas "could" repossess the item" (511.1.5) 2.Appellant had been making her payments on previously purchased items. The balance at hand before the purchase of the stereo, $164 (512.2.2) 3.The ambiguous language in the contract(511.2.2) 4.The contract was for profit (512.3.4) 5.Thus, the contract is unconscionable. Williams is relieved of the contract. Williams purchased the stereo with a balance of $164 on previously purchased items. It can be said that Williams was in good standing with Walker "Thomas Furniture Co. If Williams had not been in good standing with the company, contracting with the appellant for additional item(s) is bad business on behalf of the company. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals found that the contract was faulty, however, could not grant appellant relief. While there has never been a ruling within the district on unconsciousability, setting a precedent on the topic is not beyond the court"s jurisdiction.
Love at first sight is real

Pro's case is actually self-refutingAccording to Merriam Webster, Love is "a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person." Infatuate is "to inspire with a foolish or extravagant love or admiration." Therefore when someone has infatuated you into affections, there is no reason to say it is not love, so long as the feeling is strong. It may also be foolish, but that does not remove it being love.
Welfare discourages hardwork

It is unfortunate that there is such a growing stigma attached to this debate. First and foremost, let me start by reboutals. 1.WELFARE PAYS JUST AS MUCH OR MORE THAN MINIMUM WAGE. The minimum wage which my opponent is giving as example, can never be compared to the minimum wage amount. Take for instance, in Nigeria, every worker receives 20k per month plus his/her salary if summed up, a level 16worker who recieves over 100k per month, will be paid extra 20k as minimum wage making it to be over 120 thousand naira where as the unemployment issue in that country is nothing to write home about, whereas the poor are gnashing there teeths, whereas the children are begging in the streeth:punch.com. Source has shown that nigeria's Gdp(gross doomestic product)which is been calculated every year has drained due to the minimum wage issue as stated by the former governor of central bank of Nigeria, sanusi lamido sanusi on 7th april 2013. Imagine a situation, whereby the unemployed are compensated, either with social welfare like building of industries where they will work and paying little amount of money that will encourage them, don't you think that it will make them to be serious in their work? If one who earns ""7 a month with 4kids is been given compensation or well taken care of so as to take care of the little folks at home, don't you think the person will be serious because of the quota he earns?.. Studies support that welfare discourages work. Thats a faulty premise and thats a fallacy. Elephantjournal.org stated that welfare encourages hardwork. It won't in any way discourage hardwork. Now, there is different between tax payment,low income and welfare. It seems like my opponent do not understand my premise which I earlier stated. My argument is based on this, since welfare encourage hardwork as stated by sources, then it should be encouraged the more. My logic is based on this,we have social welfare, and other forms of welfarer that encourage people. This money is based and paid to unemployed,poor and sick. The case of unemployment is caused by the government because they didn't do their job instead they loot and embezzle public fund. Nairaland.com. So had it been the government solved this problems, the 77.7unemployment rate which is been found in Nigeria, 81.7unemployment rate in Ghana will not have been there. Source:allafricannews.com In conclusion, welfare encourages hardwork because most of this goes to the children and the less privilege who are lagging behind in terms of financial bouyant. And when one is encouraged on what he/she is doing, the person will find more reason to do more.take for instance, dickson was an investigating journalist who fought through the looks and cranny part of his country and found out that the American soldiers there came not just to protect them, but to milk there oil. Later on, he was rewarded and this even made him to be more active and exposed corrupt leaders. Having giving this, I urge you to oppose this motion. Dailysunnewspaper.com, thesunnewspaper.com,vanguard.com and allafricannewspaper.com
Welfare discourages hardwork

Socrates was right when he said, definition aids to better argument and understanding. Welfare: according to oxford advanced learnmers dictionary edition 8,it defined welfare as money that government pays regularly to people who are poor,unemployed,sick e.t.c and according to free online dictionary, it defined it as practical or financial help that is provided, often by governmment, for people that need it. Hardwork: putting effort on job or something. Based on this definition, my premise is stated thus: since most of this money goes to the poor, sick, unemployed, children e.t.c, and this are problems which the government need to solve, then welfare will even encourage hardwork. Do we know that if one is been compensated or given quota for the work done, that it will encourage the person? Now for the unemployed, they are starving. The government ought to provide industries and other social amenities that will help them and since this is not available in some country like Nigeria,Ghana,ethiopia,e.t.c then this welfare will even support the poor. A brilliant young woman in u.s.a was asked to support her argument in favour of social welfare, she named the most reliable source ever imagined:the look in a mother's face when she cannot feed her children. Can you look that hungry child in the eyes? See the blood on his feet from working barefoot in the cotton fields. Or do you ask his baby sister with her belly swollen from hunger if she cares about her daddy's work ethics? This is a practical example of what am saying. Most of this welfare goes to the poor,children and unemployed.the president of America barack obama stated on cnn.com that welfare even encourage hardwork. Having given this argument, I await my opponent's reply.
Medea is Responsible for her Actions

Pro 1. Both parties agree that the debate will be in english. 2. Medea is responsible for her actions 3. The philosopher Seneca believes that anger is something that can be controlled 4. Back in Medea's time, there was no court of law, trials, or psychiatrists. 5. Jealousy is not a plausible reason to kill children. 6. The laws in her times stated that men are allowed to divorce women whenever they wanted. 7. No where in the definition of infidelity does it state that it allows one to kill children if infidelity is taken place. 8. Thus, because Medea is not able to be deemed mentally ill or control her anger and jealousy, she is responsible for her actions. Non-Controversial #1 and #2 - terms of debate #8- conclusions Controversial #3. Seneca argues that anger can be controlled and so if it can be controlled, and she was acting out of anger by killing her children, then she should be held responsible. #4. because there were none of these back in her time, there was no way to prove her innocent in a court of law, as we do now a days, and there was no one to deem her mentally unstable which might acquit her from these charges. #5. Even if Medea was jealous that her husband left her for another woman, that does not give her the right to kill their children together as punishment. There is no such law or rule written to say that, that is acceptable. #6. because the laws stated that men were allowed to divorce women at any time, her husband technically did not cheat on her because she has no rights to him, he can only control her. So because he did not cheat, there was no reason for her to get upset thus making her responsible for her children. #7. Just because someone is cheated on, does not make it okay for them to kill their children as a form of punishment.
Medea is Responsible for her Actions

1.Partially agreeing with my opponent in the first premise, however the court of law now, is a lot different in the Medea"s time 2.Jealously was never mentioned as a reason why Medea murdered her sons; argument is on anger 3.Like revenge, jealousy can be used as a way to gain superiority 4.Medea seems to often be discredited for the murdering of her sons, but she was willing to betray her own family to be with Jason shows her loyalty to him 5."my children, there is none who can give them safety." A quote from medea, as she believes that if her sons were to stay in this world, they would have to live with the cowardly mistakes their father has made. 6.It is often misunderstood that the death of her sons, was more difficult for Medea, than for Jason 7.Therefore, Medea should not be accountable for her actions. She was completely selfless when doing so.
Medea is Responsible for her Actions

1. Even in a court of law today, there is no excuse for murder except for self defense and Medea was not using self defense when killing her children. 2. Jealousy is not an excuse for murder considering it was legal for men to commit adultery in her era. 3. If Medea had a mental issue it was not able to be diagnosed during her time which leaves her responsible 4. Seneca states that anger can be controlled and if that is the case then Medea is responsible for her actions. 5. If she was not angry and knew what she was doing calmly then she is responsible for her actions on the basis that she was aware of her actions and consequences. 6. Revenge is not a reason for murder and leaves her responsible for her actions. 7. Therefore Medea is responsible for her actions
Medea is Responsible for her Actions

1.As mentioned in the last round, I stated that she might have acted calmly to the murder of her children 2.It wasn"t easy for her and I"m sure she struggled to do so with her motherly instincts, but her revenge was much more important. 3.In response my opponent"s concern of the about superiority"if we go back to the script, after the murder of her children Jason begs to have his sons remains for burial. However, Medea refuses and takes the corpses" 4.Keeping the remains of her sons could have been her way of showing her superiority (as mentioned previously) leaving her husband to mourn helplessly. 5.This shows that she is very insensitive to the loss of her children and more concerned with her husband"s feelings. 6.Medea should not be accountable for her actions because the blame would be on her husband 7.Had he not committed adultery, their sons would still be a alive 8.Therefore, Medea"s emotions could have very well been muted during the murder of her children &should not be held responsible for that
Medea is Responsible for her Actions

1. I agree with your first statement that it was defense but protecting one's self still does not give them the right to kill another human being. 2. While superiority is a good point, I believe that in this situation it may not be completely applicable and anger is a more reasonable response to revenge. 3. Number three is a good point and as a women, it is hard to gain power but gaining power still leaves her responsible for her children's death because a life is something that cannot be taken back where as power can be distributed and change. 4. So if it can be treated then it is a problem. And if it is a problem she should still be responsible for her actions. 5. Treatment may be the way to fix it but it still leaves her responsible for bed actions. 6. Well if she was calm that is definitely scary to think that she knew what she was doing and it wasn't out of angee. That almost proves she is guilty because she is fully aware of her actions. 7. Therefore Medea is responsible for her actions because all of these things like power and revenge are only temporary and it still leaves her responsible. 8. Therefore because she might not have acted out of anger and was completely calm while killing her children, she understands what she did and is responsible for her actions.