BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Curfew for City Kids Under 18

Protection from Danger I like your points con, and I know teens go through that rebellious stage (I’m one), but if a cop sees them passed their curfew time, a cop can tell them that they shouldn’t be out on the streets at night, and that might solve some of the problems. If the kids are belligerent and won’t listen to the police officer, than they can give them some community service for breaking the law. As I said, there are too many dangers that happen beyond midnight for teens and kids to be a part of. I understand that this is a free country, but watching or being in a mugging is not good for a child, and can potentially hurt them. On the other hand, if a parent is truly not able to give proper advice and discernment for their child, they either need counseling or child confiscation. There is no parent in their right mind that allows their kids to be roaming around the streets in the early morning hour. If so, it’s ridiculous and prevention needs to happen. Protecting Others Con makes a good point, as he says, “If middle school kids are guilty of killing people, then why would any child listen to a curfew?” Well, as I have said in my previous argument, and this one, if punishment is enforced upon them, I have no doubt that they would stop. Also, this does not even apply to a middle school murderer, as they are either in a detention center or in jail. If they have not been caught, than having a police officer out at night to keep a look out would be a great addition. My opponent stated, “Specifically, more effort should be going into preventing people from killing/using drugs/illegally consuming alcohol than some curfew law.” I agree that we should take actions into those illegal things, but that’s a whole different debate! I’m talking about protection from killing/using drugs/illegally consuming alcohol. If there is a curfew, they are protected from the drugs and other various crimes during night-time hours. No Reason for it My opponent responded to my 2nd round debate on this topic by replying, “Perhaps a child might not be responsible enough, but I have known people in the past who were more responsible as teenagers than some people are as adults. I have also known people in the past who, as teenagers, worked jobs at night while still studying at school, as their families had need of the extra money.” Yes, but that does not state why a kid should be out on the streets. A child working an extra job, and taking school classes should not be out on the streets past midnight; they should be studying or sleeping. As for the responsibility part of my opponent’s argument…it does not apply to the debate at all. It’s true that many teens are more mature than adults, but at least adults can drink alcohol legally. If a teen drinks alcohol it’s illegal, therefore they should not be on the street. I do believe in parenting. I believe that a parent should raise their kid however they want to raise them. But when the parents past and/or stupidity kids in the way of their child’s safety, that’s when it crosses the line.
A Curfew for City Kids Under 18

Protection from Danger I understand what my opponent is saying, you have to realize that lots of kid’s parents are deceased/mentally ill/ troubling childhood/ divorce or something along those lines that would prevent the parent from fully giving their child proper instruction. Also, if a parent is an ex-con, than they won’t tell their kid not to stay on the street and not to smoke dope, they would most likely be a bad influence on the child. The protection is more specified towards girls. I understand that boys have their gangs and that they can be killed/hurt as well, but girls are in a lot more danger than guys. According to study in 2010, teen guys actually commit to most rapes in America. So if you don’t allow the teens on the streets, than girls will be much safer (especially because the curfew will be preventing them from being outside). I think it’s pretty logical that children and teens with a curfew would be a lot safer, than those who don’t have one. Protecting Others Believe it or not, I have seen 3 or 4 middle school kids guilty of murder in Virginia over the past years. This shows that the murdering is only getting worse, and that even 10 year old kids are killing their peers/parents/even friends. High schoolers are definitely a big cause of deaths. I completely understand that a murderer/drug user/alcoholic teenager wouldn’t go by the laws of curfew, but if a police catches them, at least they could be punished. I think the cause of a curfew would cause some gangs to break apart. Obviously not all gangs, but I think some would be scared enough to break up. No Reason for It As I said before, there might be such a need as for a teen to be outside their house, but it shouldn’t be any reason except for medical. And if a police catches them, the person could just say that they are trying to go to a doctor or CVS or something, and I’m sure the police officer would take them to the place of intention. If a teen or a child is not at their home by 12:00, it is not acceptable. Medical is the ONLY reason I think it should be allowed Conclusion Although Con gives many good reasons why there should not be an allowance, I think the Pros are a lot more than the Cons.
A Curfew for City Kids Under 18

Why there should be a curfew Protection from danger. There are many dangers that occur past midnight. Muggings, robberies, drunkards, and many more dangerous and possibly harmful things are more likely to happen at night. Protecting Others. Lots of high school kids and even middle school kids commit many murders and robberies, especially past midnight. We all know that we can’t stop them from murdering, but we can try to stop them from doing it in the complete darkness and when there are no witnesses around. Many teens also form gangs, which usually meet in the early morning hours. These gangs are obviously up to no good, and some gangs take pride in their killings. Why should they be on the streets past midnight anyways? There is absolutely no need, besides medically, that a person 18 and under should be on the city streets, or out of their homes. I understand that they should be able to have fun, and enjoy their teen years, but there are way too much alcohol, drugs, and other substances that are offered at parties. I also understand that there are “friendly” parties that don’t have drugs or any of that stuff there, but they could have it before 12:00! There defiantly should be restrictions for children 18 and under.
A Woman Cannot Be President

In generations past around the globe in the history of the world, men have been superior to women. Honestly, i believe that women's suffrage is a joke. Woman cannot fight in wars (i mean technically they can, but who wants a woman in your platoon with a machine guarding your back, i for one can't) they are have periods every month, and say a woman is in term and a crucial decision is brought to the attention of the board. And biologically woman are proven to be "cranky" at that time of month and would be much too harsh in determining decisions concerning national security and health care. Seriously, if you want to put a woman in the office, you might as well hand your @ss to the terrorists and the homosexuals because we will lose. This is america, not Oprah Winfrey's book club. Deal with it. Accept this now.
A Woman Cannot Be President

No America need the best and you know that. Here are the facts. One time I watching a non-fiction movie that if I recall was called Bobat or something. In it, the hero of the film, Bobat, is talking with two Satanist, I mean feminists and he tells them women have smaller brains then men. We need the biggest brains ( and balls- BILLY CLINTON!!!!!!) in the White House. Although women make up 54 percent of the population, how come they are 5 percent of the population that actually makes anything. And you might say because they are the "oppressed class" but why are they the oppressed class. Because they are inferior. Women are uncreative, afraid of conflict and skeptical of change. Obviously they would not have suffered such low status throughout the centuries if they had not deserved to. One last point, Men were made in the image of god and women were made after his hairy left nut. But damn isn't Ann Coulter a sexy testicle.
A Woman Cannot Be President

YES but all of these countries have gone to the dogs. Ireland- Full of old drunkards and "PUNKS". A country full of people who believe in leprechauns New Zealand- Last time I checked was under control by Sauron and his evil minion of orcs finland- they have fins, therefore they are not human, thus run by a woman the phillipines- their national delicacy is ice cream on a bun, nuff said mozambique- really? might as well bring chad into the argument you dunce germany- she is a dominatrix, thus control, thus theoretically a man liberia- thats not even a place, nice try chile- their nation is named after a spicy food, nuff said switzerland- all they do is ski, thus no economy, thus no male genatalia india- i have diarreha after i eat that nations food, you expect to shpae an economy after that food industry, i think not YOU LOSE LEARN HOW TO READ
A Woman Cannot Be President

Ireland, President Mary McAleese New Zealand, Prime Minister Helen Clark Finland, President Tarja Halonen The Philippines, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo Mozambique, Prime Minister Luisa Diogo Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel Liberia, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf Chile, President Michelle Bachelet Switzerland, President Micheline Calmy-Rey India, President Pratibha Patil If you notice. Those current leaders of countries. Female leaders. A number of them are "President". As women are presidents women can clearly be presidents. Nothing in the US constitution bars women from being president. Q.E.D. You lose.
Homosexuality is not human nature it's human nurture

Pro, So you are saying homosexuality is socially constructed. I disagree with you, my friend. If you research the developments in genetics, neuroscience, and cognitive psychology, this confirms that sexuality is indeed mostly a matter of nature. According to Stephen Jay Gould and Steven Pinker that nature is a key player to homosexuality. In Steven Pinker essay: The Blank Slate- numerous factors can go into why some boys- at puberty- become gay & others do not. Among the reasons are genes, hormones, numerous minor biological & psychological causes, as well as pure chance. Petter Boeckman said this We"re talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives. " So if you think being gay is unnatural then let's look at masturbation and oral sex is that not a part of nature too? In 1991 Simon Le Vay did a research paper which showed the differences in brain structure between homosexual and heterosexual men, was seen by many to prove that being gay wasn"t a choice. .
Homosexuality is not human nature it's human nurture

You see the idea that homosexuality is product of nature is a little silly. If we look at history we see that it's more a product of luxury and choice. Anytime an empire or country has grown so successful that it no longer has to depend on mom and dad having children to go work the fields and then grow up and be warriors in order to go off and protect the common good of the empire homosexualism has come forward. The thing is history has also taught us that empires fall. When this empire falls, and it will, family values will be forced to revert back a marriage of one man and one woman. You see this is why we didn't have big gay tribes of Native Americans running around the plains of America or anywhere else in the world for that matter. The functionality of the family and the ability to reproduce is what nature intended for our species. I don't care if scientists say well look at the gay penguins, or there is homosexuality in hippos. That's beside the point. Penguins and freaking hippos aren't building bridges and structures and flying to the moon. You see all it takes is some sort of natural or man made catastrophe to befall America and homosexuality will be a null and void lifestyle yet again. In other words and more simpler terms, if homosexuality was made by nature then it would have given them the ability to survive and adapt according to Charles Darwin's theory.
Gay Marriage

Thank you for the quick response. "Love is love, it shouldn't have anything to do with gender. I believe that marriage should be about love and commitment that you have for the other person regardless of gender." You are quoting that marriage should be based only on love and commitment. If this was so, then what would stop polygamy and zoophilia? Only love and commitment as a requirement for marriage would allow groups of people to marry each other, for all they have to do is love one another and be committed. This could also allow a dog and a man to be married, just as long as they both love each other and are committed to one another. Marriage that has its only requirement being love and commitment leads to the downfall of the institution of marriage and allows things like polygamy and zoophilia. "Oh really, is that why there are so many straight couples getting divorces recently? Is that why they argue all the time?" This quote refers to what I stated about the happiness in straight marriages. This does not correlate to the topic on hand too well, but I will refute the argument. The opponent does not signify how many straight couples are recently getting divorced. There may be many straight couples getting divorces, but there are also many straight couples who are happy and fulfilled in marriage. And saying they argue all the time is a complete assumption, my mom and dad hardly argue. "It is true that it hasn't been proving if people are born gay but it also hasn't been proving that its a choice. So yeah, I agree with you on that part." My opponent agrees with me that homosexuality is not necessarily innate. When my opponent opened, the first round, he said "gay people are born gay." I stated that it is not scientifically proven, so my opponent is now simply agreeing with me. The opponent then states that there have been ex-homosexuals and ex-heterosexuals. This again does not correlate with the topic on hand and has nothing to do with gay marriage in itself. I appreciate my opponent for opening this argument and the readers for reading. I hope you vote on the person who presented the better debate. Thank you
Gay Marriage

"What are you talking about? Homosexuals and heterosexuals both have the same rights to marriage. Listen to this: any heterosexual is able to marry a person of the opposite sex. A homosexual is also able to marry a person of the opposite sex. A heterosexual is unable to marry a person of the same sex, just like a homosexual is unable to marry a person of same sex. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals henceforth have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, but both heterosexuals and homosexuals are unable to marry a person of the same sex. Heterosexuals CHOOSE to marry people of opposite sex. However, homosexuals do not CHOOSE to marry people of the opposite sex, so the right is not being taken away from them, they are taking themselves away from the right." I hear about straight people getting divorce all the time. Straight people can have like 3, 4, or more marriages in their lifetime and gay people can't even have one? Love is love, it shouldn't have anything to do with gender. I believe that marriage should be about love and commitment that you have for the other person regardless of gender. "First off, I would just like to say that most straight married people are content with each other and relatively happy in life. Assuming most straight people are miserable is a generalization and is irrelevant." Oh really, is that why there are so many straight couples getting divorces recently? Is that why they argue almost all the time? "You did not give any scientific explanation or reasoning behind this. It has not been fully proven whether homosexuality is innate or "picked up" during life. As of now, scientists have not been able to find a gene that makes people homosexual. Your burden of proof is to prove that gay people really are born gay" It is true that it hasn't been proving if people are born gay but it also hasn't been proving that its a choice. So yeah, I agree with you on that part. "Yes, they definitely can. Haven't you heard of ex-homosexuals who had counseling and became straight? But this is irrelevant to gay marriage. I am for gay rights, but not gay marriage, which is the debate topic. This quote you said does not give a reason why it would be beneficial for gays to marry. It does not even explain why gays should get married." Yes, I've heard of ex-homosexuals but I've also heard of ex-heterosexuals. I've heard of gay people turning straight and I've heard of straight people turning gay. This is because they didn't know who they were and then later they find out who they really are. I will admit that you are a very worthy opponent and I await for your next response.
Gay Marriage

I think that if straight people can get married, then gay people should be able to get married as well. America is about equal rights." What are you talking about? Homosexuals and heterosexuals both have the same rights to marriage. Listen to this: any heterosexual is able to marry a person of the opposite sex. A homosexual is also able to marry a person of the opposite sex. A heterosexual is unable to marry a person of the same sex, just like a homosexual is unable to marry a person of same sex. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals henceforth have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, but both heterosexuals and homosexuals are unable to marry a person of the same sex. Heterosexuals CHOOSE to marry people of opposite sex. However, homosexuals do not CHOOSE to marry people of the opposite sex, so the right is not being taken away from them, they are taking themselves away from the right. "If gays want to be as miserable MOST straight people are, I say we let them!" First off, I would just like to say that most straight married people are content with each other and relatively happy in life. Assuming most straight people are miserable is a generalization and is irrelevant. "Gay people are born gay. it isn't a choice." You did not give any scientific explanation or reasoning behind this. It has not been fully proven whether homosexuality is innate or "picked up" during life. As of now, scientists have not been able to find a gene that makes people homosexual. Your burden of proof is to prove that gay people really are born gay. "They can't help that they are attracted to the same sex." Yes, they definitely can. Haven't you heard of ex-homosexuals who had counseling and became straight? But this is irrelevant to gay marriage. I am for gay rights, but not gay marriage, which is the debate topic. This quote you said does not give a reason why it would be beneficial for gays to marry. It does not even explain why gays should get married. In conclusion, I would just like to say that I am against gay marriage. I have refuted my opponent's arguments and await on the response.
Rape investigations and imprisonments shall be stopped for ever.

PRO has, unfortunately, simply repeated many of the arguments from round 1 which I have shown to be nonsense. He did however expand on his explanation to why he doesn’t regard rape as a crime, even comparing it to slavery. In a way it’s the opposite because the woman becomes the slave. I don’t feel I need to explain why the law against rape is not the same as the former American segregation laws because any idiot can understand why it’s not the same. This must mean PRO is below idiotic. However, let’s examine PRO’s points on why he claims to believe it is not a crime.“Actually, if we think of rape rationally and critically, by using our human rationality, it is easily discovered that there is no "victim" in rape whatsoever. During and after rape, the raping male obtains pleasure and satisfaction, which are hardly horrible for one to feel. Meanwhile, the raped female has done a good deed to the raping male by facilitating herself in order to provide him pleasure and satisfaction - all for free. This is totally similar to an act of charity and volunteerism.”Stupidity to the highest degree. Obviously PRO lacks the intelligence to comprehend a woman’s mental health after such a traumatic incident. PRO also has never heard of sexual transmitted diseases also. So yes they’re victims. You go on to say:-“what is lost in rape? In murder, a human life is lost. In theft or arson, there is a loss of physical property. However, what is specifically lost in rape?”By this rational PRO would suggest assault is not a crime. There are losses though. The loss of trust, confidence, self esteem. You may have to take time off work which means for some a loss of income. You may become pregnant with the child of the rapist. Your mental health may suffer so much you take your own life.PRO then repeats himself about taxpayers money….I have already explained that taxpayers money is there to stop things like rape for public safety. If you were to put all the tax payers to a vote they’d vote on if their money should go towards rape prosecutions it would be overwhelmingly in favour. He then finishes by mentioning human rights….how about the right to walk down the street without being assaulted. I really don’t feel it is necessary to go into too much detail in my arguments because PRO’s arguments are so idiotic it makes my case for me. I'm confident the voters can see past the absurd arguments PRO is making and also see the repetitivness of it if they're even able to read it all without switching the computer off for fear of getting dumber for having read it.
Rape investigations and imprisonments shall be stopped for ever.

Yet again PRO’s attitude is so ridiculous that it is making my case for me. Time after time PRO only sees the act of rape from the perspective of the criminal committing the crime of rape. He seems to disregard the free will of the victim and takes the absurd view that the victim should be happy to provide a service. When raped you do not get the choice of exposing yourself to STD’s, pregnancy and psychological disruption to your life. PRO refers to consent as a “hassle” which kind of proves my point here. I would like to apologise to the voters for the repetitive nature of this debate but it is hard to take the debate in a new direction when PRO repeats the same nonsensical arguments over and over and, as I pointed out at the end of round 4, refuses to acknowledge that his arguments have already been shown to be idiotic. I can assume from this debate that, with the views held by PRO, that he is an extremely disturbed human being that needs some kind of help. I can also assume that with people in the world who think this way that rape would become a much more regular occurrence without the fear of the consequences of the law to deter them. As a voter I expect you to be sensible here. If what PRO wants becomes a reality (which it won’t) your daughter, sister, mother and you would stand a far greater chance of having to go through this trauma. I would also like to remind everyone of a point I made in round 1. The title of the debate is “Rape investigations and imprisonments shall be stopped forever”. The burden of proof is on PRO to prove that it will in fact be stopped forever. PRO only spent time explaining why he thinks it should be stopped forever (which was ridiculous in itself). Therefore he has been disproved on two fronts. Congratulations for anyone who managed to read up to this point. Hopefully you are not dumber for having done so.