BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abolishing the drinking age(U.S.)

I will post my opening arguments in this round and then expand on them in the next. 1.)Making a minimum drinking age does not deter most teenagers from drinking alcohol. 62% of high school seniors according to one survey admitted to being drunk recently.[1] All this does is make alcohol a forbidden fruit which makes it seem more attractive to youth. 2.)As a minimum drinking age does not lower alchohol ingestion rates among teenagers, teens are not allowed to drink in bar or most public places. This means that teens must steal alcohol and ingest it in private which can lead to higher rates of binging as there are not social pressures to make the teen stop when he/she is at his/her limit. I will go into more detail in the next round and also refute my opponent's arguments. For now I pass the debate on back to my opponent. [1]http://www.about-alcoholism-info.com...
POFO debaters, April topic. POFO debaters only please.

I'm going o start with my contentions and move to my opponents Although only 23% of people say they plan to spend the money doesn't mean that's what will happen. You can plan all you want but as I'm sure we all know, there are things that come up that you need/want to spend money on and if you have the money, you'll spend it. Furthermore you negleted to refute my subpoint that even if people put their money in the bank, that'll still help the economy. Now on to my second contention. First of all, $50 billion is not a small ammount of money. Though just to humor you I'll say this, how can you expect the government to put anymore money into tax rebate and incentives when we are fighting a war that cost millions of dollars a day. The economy is important, no doubt, but it's not in such a bad state that the government should start withdrawing money from other important funds. That being said, according to Rea S. Hederman, Jr., previously cited, the government "...have rejected some of the additional spending that many politicians wanted." So not all of the money has come from the deficit. But really, that is besides the point, it no longer matters where the money came from, what's done is done, what matters is how it'll help the economy. Now to to my opponents case (which i did not refute earlier, because that's not what a first speech is for in PF) First of all, I disagree with your second observation. The definition of mitigate, according to http://www.merriam-webster.com... is to "to make less severe" and the definition of success is "favorable or desired outcome." So basically this means that to successfully mitigate something, is to make it less worse. So for our debate all I need to do is prove that it'll slow down the economic downturn (although it will probably do more than that). Now on to his contentions. My opponent said that "a lot of the stuff we buy is from foreign country, so many economists say, only half will go into the economy." While we may buy "a lot of stuff" from foreign countries my opponent fails to see that the stuff is sold in the U.S. and thus those companies will see higher profits becuase of the stimulus act. He also sugested raising wages to help the economy and by this I assume he means that the minimum wage should be raised. However this will only make companies less likely to hire new people since they'll have to pay them more. What will happen is that companies will use there tax savings to give their current employees raises and hire new people because they will actually have the money to do so. His third contention is really irrelevant since there multiple things are happening at the same time there is no way to prove which thing will mitigate the economy.
POFO debaters, April topic. POFO debaters only please.

"Our first contention is that the tax rebates will improve our economy. My opponents will tell you that people will not spend their rebate money, but rather, that they will save it in their banks for a rainy day or until they know it will continue. I'm not going to tell you that no one will do this," , First off you have to look to two things with regards to his contention. 1)He is going off his own assumptions, while disregarding Milton Friedman's Risk Aversion theory which states people spend according to what their future income may be. Meaning if they see a Recession coming and the Government is giving aid to stop this, it will fail to get the majority to be spent. Just look to all the polls online, the majority of the rebates will be not be spent, only 23%. They are only giving it to people that are more likely to spend, but those people are in the highest debt range, so they will spend it on debt or save it. 2)Tax Rebates are proven ineffective towards Tax rate reductions, which I just showed, which he did not rebut. Do you really think a 600 rebate is going to make a big differance Now onto his 2nd contention, the critics of the act say very simply the business incentives are there to encourage new investment, but how are they doing that when the investment is already going off. And bottomline these incentives are relatively small. Now onto his last statement it will be 150+ billion, but tax reductions evidence proves that the rebates had a quick boost in 2001, but 2002-2003 was a stagnant economy, with almost no growth. The reason for the stimulus os to create rapid growth , not slow growth. Where is that 150 billion coming from, oooh yea the deficit. Vote Neg
POFO debaters, April topic. POFO debaters only please.

Resolved: That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year. Before I go into my case, I'd like to put forth some definitions to be used in this debate. Mitigate Make less severe or harsh; Lessen or to try to lessen the seriousness or extent of Success Favorable or desired outcome As we all have probably noticed from various news stories, our economy is currently slowing down and some people might even say that it is heading toward a recession. To stop this President Bush and our Congress passed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. Today my partner and I intend to prove that this Act will in fact mitigate the slowdowns. Contention 1 Our first contention is that the tax rebates will improve our economy. My opponents will tell you that people will not spend their rebate money, but rather, that they will save it in their banks for a rainy day or until they know it will continue. I'm not going to tell you that no one will do this, but I will tell you that not everyone will save it. In fact, considering that these rebates will be going to people in the lower and middle classes, I believe that more people will spend it on things they need. Those that do spend it will obviously have an instant positive affect on the economy and will help boost our economy into a more stable situation. Furthermore, the people who bank their money will also be helping the economy. First of all, they will eventually spend that money (with interest) and thus they will eventually help the economy. In a more short term view though, they give banks more money to loan out and this again, will help boost the economy. Contention 2 Our second contention is that the tax incentives for businesses will not only allow them to buy more supplies, but it will also provide more jobs for our economy. Approximately 50 billion dollars will be saved by businesses. Clearly this money is going to go somewhere. Businesses will use this opportunity to expand their companies. According to Rea S. Hederman, Jr., in an article titled "The House Stimulus Package: The Good and the Bad:" "The best part of the agreement is tax cuts for businesses."Bonus depreciation," which allows companies to rapidly deduct qualified investment from their tax liability, makes new investment opportunities more profitable and attractive. This provision would increase business investment, which would create jobs and strengthen the economy. Businesses spending more is clearly a good thing because again, that means more money is going into the economy. Also, using their new savings, businesses will be able hire more workers, which will again benefit the economy. This alone should help mitigate the economic slowdown. Conclusion This act is expected to put $152 billion back to nearly 128 million households and to millions of businesses. With this much money going back into the economy in one way or another, how will this act not successfully mitigate the economic slowdowns? p.s. I'd like to ask my opponent to respond to this before Friday or until Saturday or Sunday since I will be gone Friday until Sunday night.
Abortion is murder

Sorry if im rusty this is one of my first debates. " Some 1.06 million abortions were performed in 2011, down from 1.21 million abortions in 2008, a decline of 13%. " Women who have never been married account for one-third of abortions in America. " Less than 1% of all abortions take place because of rape and/or incest. Women give an average of 3.7 reasons why they are seeking an abortion including the following: " 21% Inadequate finances " 21% Not ready for responsibility " 16% Woman"s life would be changed too much " 12% Problems with relationships, unmarried " 11% Too young and/or immature " 8% Children are grown; she has all she wants " 3% Baby has possible health problems " <1% Pregnancy caused by rape/incest " 4% Other Rape is a very small portion and so is incest. Women have the full choice not to have sex and if they do and they don't want children then simply wear protection. It is a very rare occasion that birth control fails and it depends on the brand of control you purchase same with condoms
Abortion is murder

Thanks for sending me the challenge!The BoP in this debate is on you, as you are the one making the positive claim that abortion is murder. You have not yet given any reasons as to why abortion is murder, just a bare assertion that it is. To win this debate you must prove that abortion is murder.You say women have full control of their bodies and the choice of not having unprotected sex, but other circumstances also apply, such as rape or when birth control or protection fails.Seeing as I have nothing to respond to, I shall end my arguments here. Over to Con.
Are we actually becoming Intolerant while claiming to be Tolerant

First I would like to state that I agree with most of your points and that in a sense movements such as the gay rights movement are hypocritical. But if the question is are we tolerant I would say yes we are. From this point on, everything stated is from a US point of view of everyday life in the US and nations like it (UK, France, etc...) compared to the rest of the world. So if w look back on history we can see how far we've come from being intolerant people. Just take a trip to NYC and you will see just how amazingly integrated we are. No one takes into account people's race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. There are racist/sexist/ just plainly intolerant people and there always will be but you can't let them be the poster girls of our society. Muslims, Christians, and Jews live in peace here. African-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Latin-Americans, English-Americans all live together. No ones killing each other or sitting on different parts of the restaurant. There are still hate-crimes out there but there numbers are highly inflated. Why? because it's news. You're more likely to hear something about a swastika being spray painted on some Jewish families garage than a headline saying "Local Muslim family gets served at a Jewish Restaurant" or "Black man marries White girl" or even "Straight kid is friend with Gay guy." It's not news, it's not shocking. It's perfectly normal and there's no reason to report it. There may still be intolerance in our society but the amount of it is highly inflated by our imaginations and maybe, just maybe, we should add on the other side, the unseen deeds before we call ourselves intolerant.
Are we actually becoming Intolerant while claiming to be Tolerant

While the World is going through a seismic change both geographically and socially we are faced with a strange paradox, tolerance. On the one hand tolerance has come to the forefront in the Western World of late, in regards to Race, Sexual Identity and Immigration. However a paradoxically worrying trend has arisen, like a Phoenix from a fire which is the fact that we appear to be going backwards, or more precisely more intolerant. Take for instance the argument for Gay Marriage. While the Gay community argues the fact that they want the right afforded every heterosexual couple who marry in Church, their argument leaves an undercurrent and hint of intolerance. Gays want the right to marry in Church. However they know that the Church has teachings and Religious Beliefs that prevents the Church from marrying same sex couples and for this reason the Church suffers and are attacked not only by the Gay community but Leftist organisations. Now. If tolerance, true tolerance were to be applied, the Church would not be attacked or criticised for exercising the right to refuse the marrying of same sex couples on the premise that due to a tolerant and democratic society they are afforded their right to refuse. However we find this to be the opposite of that which is reality. Now we can look at Immigration. While the EU, has opened up the doorway to live and work across Europe, we find a worrying tide of Nationalism within the countries of the EU, countering the influx of immigrants to varying nations. While the EU, produces laws and Human Rights Charters aimed at creating and maintaining tolerance within nations we find a rise of militancy, unrest and intolerance. We also find that Race produces intolerance within contemporary 21st century nations. So I ask you this. Are we really Tolerant?
Winter Regular tournament R1: Resolved, the USFG should legalize Euthanasia

This is round one of the Winter Regular Debate Tournament. This debate will be about the legalization of the nationally controversial topic that is Euthanasia.Important definitionsUSFG: United States Federal Government.Euthanasia: Also called mercy killing; the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die,as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition.http://dictionary.reference.com...First round will be for acceptance, and will allow lannan13 to contact me in order to clarify definitions, and talk about general debate structure prior to him accepting. The Official forum thread for this tournament can be found here:http://www.debate.org...I will be arguing this resolution from a philosophical, economical, and realistic stand point rather than one valuing morals/ethics as much, though some points regarding them may come up throughout the debate.I will be arguing for voluntary, and non-voluntary Euthanasia, and in some specific cases, involuntary Euthanasia. I think it is important to remember based on the definition I provided above, Euthanasia in this instance does not only apply to humans, but also to animals. I say this in the first round to let lannan13 know I will be taking a broad look into this topic, so no complaints can be made later on.Good luck in the debate lannan13, I look forward very much to this tournament.
mobile phone is paralysis to youngster mind

Smartphones are useful tools to kids because it teaches them responsibility. Since they like their phone so much, they will be careful not to lose it and this will help them develop future skills for life such as orginization. Also, parents can use a cellphone as a motivator, letting kids have it after they do something good, such as taking out the trash, washing dishes, setting table,etc. The phones can help kids learn valuabe character traits that can be used later in life, when they really matter, but a cellphone gives kids a chance to hone these traits in a safe enviroment.
mobile phone is paralysis to youngster mind

Mobile phones are not paralysis to youngster's minds because although there is a lot of bad and unproductive stuff out there, there are still some useful things that can be acessed on smartphones. Students can contact teachers, consult with eachother about homework and help eachother out. Another reason smartphones are not terribly bad is that you can acess information much quicker, like if you have a reasearch paper due that week. If others have the same topic, books at the library could already be checked out, but on the internet nothing can ever be on "hold". The smartphones can quickly get you the information, and a lot more of it then if you consulted a book.
New Members Tournament: Murder is Never Morally Permissible.

This debate will be between Thett3 and myself for the New Members Tournament.Round 1: Acceptance.Round 2: Cases.Round 3: Rebuttal of round 2.Round 4: Rebuttal of round 3.Murder (1): To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
If there is another civil war likely North vs South who wins? I say South.

First off Michigan no that is by and large Republican, Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican Governor and is looking like its going to elect its first Republican US Senator in many years, I know this, the only Democratic thing is who was elected as President and most of those votes were carried by Wayne County. Ok, I did not by any means say why Robert E. Lee was in the North because as we all know the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was a free state so he had no intention of persuading them. The man made it deep into the Union, lets honestly sit back and look at the facts. Had it not been for manpower and production the South wins the American Civil War. At last check, going past Washington D.C., through Maryland and into Pennsylvania is a little more than small advances. In reference to the military installations in Florida, this is largely irrelevant a simple look at the most recent Gallup poll has the Military Approval Rating of Obama at 37%... 37% is not going to win you a war. Obama and the North need an Army and when the South is offering the exact opposite of what the North has, which nowadays is the blatant lack of moral values, decline in American values and overall what the Democratic party is spearheading we see that the North would not have them on there side and with 29 Air Force bases alone spread throughout what would be the "Red States" and that's in addition to 16 Marine and Navy Bases that are spread throughout this also, and that is needless to say you do in fact have the support of some military you don't outnumber the South by any means. In fact Florida would be surrounded so it would be rendered useless. When we go to manufacturing the South has a huge industrial base now in the form of automobile factories, and electronics, it has the same manufacturing base that the North had and the North, well as we know has declined in its manufacturing capacity with the only state that has seen significant recovery being Michigan, with a large population and the Largest 5 Branch Military Base in the World for the US it has a huge advantage, and you see the population doesn't matter when the people don't want to fight. As we all know liberals aren't known to be fighters they only talk loud and hope others don't respond, tolerance, tolerance, until someone doesn't agree so don't forget that you would probably see a large influx of the rich moving to Red States if Civil War did happen as we all know many wealthy are conservative. In conclusion for this round, you need military support just because the state is Democrat your probably not going to have the military support there if the recent poll is any indication, the Blue states would be in trouble.
If there is another civil war likely North vs South who wins? I say South.

I will include Michigan because it is considered a democrat state and no longer classified as a battleground. It is also religiously diverse with a high amount of indepenents and liberals.In the first Civil War, the South made it deep into the North and almost won the whole thing.This is false. Robert E Lees Grand Strategy was to invade the slave states that stayed with the union, in hopes of swaying them to join the confederacy, in order to create a buffer zone between the confederates and the Union Army. Both invasionsinto Union territory ended disastrously for Lee. Having lost any of the little advancements he had made into union territory, Lee was forced to fight a defensive strategy. Which resulted in Tecumseh Shermans counter attack. http://upload.wikimedia.org... Then we move to the modern era, with the invention of air-conditioning many people moved south, and economically the Southern states are much better off economically, the production capability is leaning toward a Southern advantage, and the population is relatively the same. Central States - These are some of our poorest states, and are surrounded by Union States to the East and West. They rely heavily on resources from the midwest, and their survival would rely heavily on supply shipments. For these states to survive, the hypothetical confederate army would have to divert much needed troops and supplies to protect these vunurable states.http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu...;Population- Given the Fact that Florida, the west coast,midwest, and north east were all consiered union territory, the union population surpasses that of the confederate population of today.Infrastructure: Midwest- The midwest is the hub of the American auto industry and prouctive farmlands. It has become the center of American industry, and many nations have a reliance on food from the midwest. Including the central and southern states. The midwest also has the largest fresh water reserves, which are needed desperately in texas and other confederate states.West Coast- The west Coast has a huge population, easily capable of advancing against the weaker confederate statesthe east, like New Mexico. California also has the largest economy of any of the states, which is a huge union advantage.Florida- Florida has huge tactical advantaage to the union,as it has a huge population and many military establishments. It is an extremely wealth state located on a narrow, defensible, position beneath the confederacy.North East- The Northeast is no doubt the industrial epicenter of the US. These states are extremely wealthy, and have a population capable of creating a large army. They are densly compacted, making it hard to break past defensie lines.Thanks you, and that was round 1!
If there is another civil war likely North vs South who wins? I say South.

Seems fair with the exception of Michigan which has gone considerably right in recent years. So first off lets look at history, in the first Civil War, the South made it deep into the North and almost won the whole thing, however, it did not have the population nor the industrial capability of the North and therefore it in the end could not compete. Then we move to the modern era, with the invention of air-conditioning many people moved south, and economically the Southern states are much better off economically, the production capability is leaning toward a Southern advantage, and the population is relatively the same.
If there is another civil war likely North vs South who wins? I say South.

I accept under these conditions. -Southern states will comprise of all states that are republican and have strong christian society's. This will include the historic southern states and central states. -Northern states will comprise of the northeast,midwest,pacific states, Nevada, and Florida. All these states are primarily liberal,democratic, and are not influenced much by theological laws. Civil War will be defined as a conflict to replace the current government. If any of these rules you disagree with, pm me.