BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People of all ages should be considered inherently equal.

My opponent claims that I am taking his premises to an extreme by citing absurd hypothetical examples. My opponent seems to forget that he said that senior citizens should be allowed to marry a 5 year old, based on a "merit based" case-by-base system. So I am not sure where you are getting off trying to dodge the fact that the very nature of what you are arguing is absurd. Also, please note that my opponent completely failed to acknowledge the scientific evidence provided to him last round. Does my opponent think that a newborn infant, fresh out of the womb, should be afforded the opportunity to be the POTUS speech writer? I would think not, because that human has not had enough time to develop the brain functions and social wherewithal to even be considered as a speech writer. Therefore, we can dismiss this human as a candidate for being the POTUS speech writer, simply by virtue of their age (among other factors). But it is not unreasonable to dismiss a newborn infant from being even considered for employment as a speech writer (or Fighter Jet Pilot, or Chemistry Teacher, or Brian surgeon) based solely on the fact their age is less than one month old! I agree with you, sir, that sometimes using age as a barrier for certain activities is imprecise. I do not agree, sir, that age should be completed disregarded. Nor do I agree that all humans are equal with regard to their age. So to the questions at the end of your last round, I say to you sir, that I have already answered them! You simply lack critical reading skills given that you have not seen that, and that you failed to address the scientific evidence presented to you. Humans develop. Their brains develop. Their body develops. One metric we use to measure how developed they are, and how far along they should be in this development, is age. It is not unreasonable to use age as a measuring stick for implementing policies. It is useful and good, despite some instances where it could be more precise or done on a case-by-base basis.
People of all ages should be considered inherently equal.

OK, so you're basically just being snarky with your definition of age, and how we use it as a society. You're looking at age as merely a demographical description to a person, and like age, gender, or race, we should not discriminate based upon age. I seriously doubt you are really suggesting we allow toddlers to vote in a presidential election. It's just not practical. And to suggest that there is no difference between someone based on their age is also scientifically false. The human brain develops overtime. Human babies do not have the capacity for reason, complex language, abstract thinking, appreciate of aesthetics, the ability to control motor reflexes, etc. Do you know why they don't have those abilities? Of course, we all do. Because babies have no had the time to develop those functions. The brain develops over time, and over time the capacity of the human brain changes. http://neuraldevelopment.biomedcentral.com... ^ There's an open peer-reviewed website on any topic you'd like on brain development. Since time is a major factor in the development of the human brain, age (which is a measure of human's time developing on earth) is a valid metric to use in determining certain rights and privileges. A newborn baby should not be granted a semi-truck. It has not had proper time for the brain to develop. It has not had time for the body to grow to even reach all the necessary equipment to operate the vehicle. Those factors are based on the time it takes for the human to develop, and the metric we use to measure that time is age. Age is a critical measure by which we need to gauge children actually. The CDC has a list of milestones that experts use in diagnosing children who may or may not have defects of diseases. https://www.cdc.gov... What you are proposing is essentially this: An extreme outlier could maybe exist. Someone can be 8 months old and have the faculty to do anything and everything a 45 year old man and/or woman can. In the purest and most theoretical sense....I will concede maybe. But I live in the real world, and using age as a metric to gauge certain privileges human beings can do in society is a good thing. I will concede it is not perfectly employed, but it is useful and good. I appreciate that your'e debating for the sake of debating, but you're ideas are what I'd expect out of the class clown trying to waste the teacher's time in High School.
People of all ages should be considered inherently equal.

So I ask my opponent but one question: Do you think an 8 month old baby should be allowed to cast a vote in a democratic election? More to the point, do you think there should be any age restrictions for choosing the people who govern our society and order men and women into battle? Are you really proposing that an 8 month old (As you stated in your opening argument) should have the same vote as a 30 year old? Should we also draft that 8 month old into service? Should we let the 5 year old work in a factory? Is it ok for a 66 year old man to marry a 5 year old girl? Or should we have some form of age restrictions? Imprecise though they may be. You're premises, I fear, do not work in practicality and reality. Do some societal laws and ideas need some revision? Sure. Are some teenagers more responsible than some adults? No doubt. Does this mean we should get rid of age restrictions all together? Absolutely not.
People of all ages should be considered inherently equal.

Hello, everyone! Welcome to my first debate topic on this forum. I look forward to participating here. To make sure my opening position is clear, "people of all ages" means any human being in existence, "inherently" means "by default" and "equal" means "presented with equivalent opportunities to engage in all rights, privileges and responsibilities of the human condition compared to any other human being". I am taking the position that, before considering any other factors, an 8 month, 8 year, 18 year and 80 year old person should be treated and evaluated no differently from one another in any way. I have no particular "rules" for debate, other than that the goal should be to get as close to the top of the debate pyramid as possible (google 'debate pyramid' if you don't know what I'm talking about).
vvvvvvvvvvvv

vvvvvvvvvv is awesome and it is not what you say it is I made it up it really means vvvvvvvvvvvv okay so don't be stupid.I'd like to point out that my opponent isn't properly reading the resolution of the debate as he is stating that vvvvvvvvvv[10 characters] isn't the topic and instead insists that it is instead vvvvvvvvvvvv[12 characters] while the resolution clearly is vvvvvvvvvvvv[12 characters]. So, he is saying that the resolution isn't A, but instead is B, while I already agreed that it is B. This is complete nonsense. I'd also like Conduct points deducted for his inappropriate comment about my intelligence. Now, the rest of the round goes off into some form of a blur, but with the assistance of some friends I have deduced that this is indeed the keysmash dialect of trollian, the native language of the Internet trolls. Getting someone that knows this dialect to translate for us without being insulted was a hard job, but eventually I found a 4Chan user that could roughly translate. The translation is, with certain degree of errors: “Dear readers of the debate, I apologize for my rather unsettling conduct and I'd hope that you would forgive my use of foreign languages but I'm more comfortable in this language. Now, to the debate. [part missing due to lack of proper translation] and this is why vvvvvvvvvv is good, being unclearly defined, a honour to humanity and a necessity of [ unknown ]. Further more. I'd like my opponent to clearly define [unknown] and [unknown] because without these substantial evidence the debate clearly falls in my favor. His run around arguments have nothing to do with the resolution and [unknown] I like penguins. Penguins are nice. Just like vvvvvvvv they bring joy to children everywhere. I remember when I was a little boy, walking along [unknown] and picking the fruits of vvvvvvvv as it filled my heart with glee. Of course my hypothetical story [unknown]. And this is why I think vvvvvvvv is so marvellous, I await the next set if arguments. And last of all: cccccccccccccccc. wait I forgot,thank you for taking the debate. “ I tried to get alternative translations but unfortunately most of the natives simply made inappropriate comments about my mother and made sexual insults. So, this one translation has to do. Now, I'd like to remind my opponent that DDO is an English speaking platform and that Trollian, as diverse as that language is, is not an accepted form of communication around here. Now, My opponent did not cite any sources in his arguments and in fact made no arguments at all. Apart from his metaphorical story that my translator couldn't get a good translation from most of his arguments seemed to be personal opinions that don't really have anything to do with the debate. Therefore I am dropping his speech entirely with the exception of the penguin part: Penguins are not always nice, some breeds of penguins are bullies that force other penguins off their territory and forced baby penguins into the cold waters. That's not nice at all.I hand the debate back to my opponent with the hope that he makes a strong case for the resolution that does not involve penguins.
vvvvvvvvvvvv

vvvvvvvvvv is awesome and it is not what you say it is I made it up it really means vvvvvvvvvvvv okay so don't be stupid. ekorstgiuytrdfjnhcdcbngvfcdscvbgfdscfvbgfdfvgbfdsfghjgtfrdefghgtfrdbhjhytrghnmkjuytghjuytghjkiu7ytghnmkiuytgbkiuyghjkiuyhji8u7yhjkiuyhjkiouyhnmjkiuytgkiuhygbnkiuyhjiuygbnjuygvnmjuygtfvbnjuytfvbnhuytbhytfvbhuytgbnhjuygvbhtrfcvbhu76trfdvbjuytrfbnkiuytfvbnmkjuygfckjugfv bnhgtfrbgnW06;""W30;W47;H9;""X04;"W47;W30;"W06;""H9;W10;I0;W10;H9; "W06;""H9;W10;H9;""W06;""H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;H9;""""""W21;""W06;""H9;W10;I0;I0;W10;H9;"""W06;"W21;W06;""H9;W10;I0;W10;H9;"""""W06;""W30;W47;""X04;I0;W10;H9;""""W21;""W30;W47;"I0;""""""W21;"W76;"W30;W47;"W10;""""W21;"W76;"W30;W47;"W10;"""""""W34;W06;"W30;W47;"""""""""""H9;""""""W21;"W06;""H9;W10;I0;""""W34;""W06;"W30;W47;""I0;"""""""W06;"W30;W47;""W10;"""""W06;"W30;W47;"W10;"X04;" W21;"""""H9;"W10;""I0;""""W06;"W76;W30;W47;"W10;""""W06;"W30;W47;"W10;""W34;"W06;"W30;"W47;"H9;""" and last of all ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc wait I forgot fu fu fu fu fu fu fu fu fu
vvvvvvvvvvvv

http://www.lolking.net... " vvvvvvvvvvvv is as of this debate a level 30 player from North America. Despite being of such a high level he cannot boast himself of having a particularly impressive winning streak. If we compare him to two random team mates from one of his matches that are also a level 30 we can see that someone hasn't been investing a whole lot of time to the arts of war craft that is required in LOL. . http://www.lolking.net...http://www.lolking.net...If we look at these two we see that Typical Alex is also a level 30; in just 5v5 he is doing quite well:Normal 5v5 Wins 77 Kills 1,523 Assists 1,303 Minion Kills 20,450 Neutral Minion Kills 658 Turrets Destroyed 205 While Rolska is doing even much much better:Normal 5v5 Wins 206 Kills 2,266 Assists 3,495 Minion Kills 40,927 Neutral Minion Kills 3,188 Turrets Destroyed 335 That's pretty impressive, correct? Well, what about our beloved vvvvvvvvvvvv? Normal 5v5 Wins 4 Kills 30 Assists 91 Minion Kills 690 Neutral Minion Kills 20 Turrets Destroyed 3 We can clearly see that something is incorrect in this equation, if vvvvvvvvvvvv is so cccccccccccc then why does he only have a single percentage of game victories? Why is he a full 1500 kills behind his level mates? In a game that revolves around team matches, victories, kills and assists vvvvvvvvvvvv isn't doing his job; But what is he then doing? He's clearly not devoting his time to the game like he should be doing if he is to become a champion of this sport. Ladies and gentlemen, readers of this debate. I'd like my opponent to come out here and fully explain his case, I'd like him to be precise and give us reliable evidence the vvvvvvvvvvvv is a great LOL player. I want answers, and I want them now.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a Serious Threat to the United States of America

The definition of threat is, "a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger." (Google Dictionary). North Korea has been catching up to the U.S. quickly in terms of military technology; they have already been developing nuclear weapons and such, and are willing to use them (CNN News, Jethro Mullen). If North Korea were to use a nuclear weapon on the United States, it would certainly cause damage and danger to a part of the U.S. While North Korea may not be able to win a war against the United States, it possesses and is developing weapons that definitely pose a threat to the United States. As for what you stated about citizens with a right sense of mind hating the government in North Korea, most citizens in North Korea do not have a right sense of mind. North Korea is a brainwashed society, and many of its citizens support the creation and possible using of nuclear weaponry, further posing a threat to the United States (The Guardian, Je Son Lee). https://www.google.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.theguardian.com...
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not a Serious Threat to the United States of America

Here are the rules. You state why you think the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) is a threat. Voters will choose the winner. North Korea is not a threat to the United States of America (U.S.A.). There is no way they can win a war against us. North Korea's technological capability far lacks the U.S.A.'s capability. Their equipment is old and obsolete. Their military is very corrupt. It has terrible leadership. Their government is also very corrupt. They have terrible leadership, there is no trust between officials at all. Kim Jong Un, North Korea's dictator, executed his uncle. Anybody with a right sense of mind in North Korea do not trust the government, and they hate it. North Korea is the most corrupt country in the world. They are not a real threat to the United States of America. http://www.cheatsheet.com...
Why Are Most Hairdressers Considered Stupid

I would like to inform my opponent that I am a hairdresser and I'm NOT stupid. Hey they just cut hair!? As I have stated before that's not what hairdressers just do, they do many other things. I think my opponent is just repeating himself and not really getting to the point. I think already I have proved that hairdressers are NOT stupid and should be given a little bit more respect. Because hey we are the ones with the scissors!! Hahaha
Why Are Most Hairdressers Considered Stupid

If you were to go to your local college and look up how many years it takes to become a fully qualified hairdresser, you will find it can take up to 4 years! This is because they do not just learn how to "cut hair "they learn how to; perm, colour, hair up and colour corrections and many other things. The main point that I'm trying to get across is that if some people think that hairdressers are stupid, then why do these some people trust a hairdresser with their hair?
Why Are Most Hairdressers Considered Stupid

Hello, yes I am fully aware I have made this argument before, I would like to state before anything is said that I do have dyslexia, and I have typed this up on a word document before posting it, so I have tried to make it easy for my opponent to understand. Starting the debate. I would like to start by asking the simple question. Why do some people think that hairdressers are stupid? Now I'm going to tell you a few reasons why they are not. 1) Hairdressers are good councillors; they sit there and listen to your problems. 2) Hairdressers are imaginative, it take a lot to come up with the ideas they have. 3) If you went into hairdressers and you thought that they where stupid would you want to get your hair cut buy them? No! You'd walk out thinking that you're going to get your ear chopped off There are 3 that I can think of at the top of my head. But at the end of the day if you walk into a salon and have a bad experience, if you go back to that salon they have to fix it for free. If you don't go back your silly, look at recommendations before you go to a salon. I wish my opponent Good Luck. 
atheist Dogma is a Belief System (AKA a Religion)

You are right in that an atheism is a belief system in that it's a set of ideas onto which one would base one's actions. There's nothing inherently wrong with having ideas and living by them!On ReligionHowever, you are entirely wrong in the main thrust of your argument that atheism is a religion! You're basically saying that every belief system (e.g. political ones such as Communism, or Democracy) are also religions. A religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." (Google) and there are aspects of a religion that atheism doesn't share:1. atheism doesn't have a holy book2. atheism doesn't have shared practices such as prayer or gatherings 3. atheist groups don't get tax free benefits on their churches (they don't have churches)So to call atheism a religion is entirely wrong and your OP fails at it's title.On DogmaYou also use the term 'dogma', which means "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." without really supporting what you mean by this and what these principles are. Until you do, since the rest of your so-called debate is general rant about 'atheist dogma', you don't really have an argument: you're just ranting.Side TripIt's interesting you use religious terms to disimss atheism, as if they were inherently bad things. They're not: there is nothing wrong with having 'dogma' - they're ideas that form the foundation of a belief system. There is nothing wrong with religions either - there are atheistic religions such as Buddhism or Shinto or - reflecting upon the majesty of the universe doesn't necessarily require a deity. Anyway, good luck with the rest of the debate. I hope you learn something and that your snowflake feelings don't get too butthurt.
atheist Dogma is a Belief System (AKA a Religion)

ATHEISTIC BELIEFS: Anyone who is atheist would have to be a believer, because atheist Dogma is a belief system. It's a false belief system with no evidence in its favor, but it is a belief system nonetheless. Believers in atheist Dogma posit many more beliefs than any Theist I've ever seen, and the atheistic beliefs are the craziest and most ignorant beliefs I've ever heard: They usually start off their silly posts by stating that it's just a "lack of belief," and then they proceed to regurgitate 5, 15, 25 or more false, irrational, ignorant, and ridiculous atheistic beliefs that they picked up from that moron dawkins or from one of his idiot atheistic cohorts. That's why it's called the belief in atheist Dogma! Related short video:
Truth Objectively Exists

truth can only be in the past, and the past is no more, the future and past doesn't matter, is information, and my imagination only happens now, now is matter true is matter, and truth is memory, know and knowledge, now and past, where as the future is false belief=false=future know=true=now knowledge=truth know is the balancing point between belief and knowledge, and belief is the opposite of knowledge equations are true or false, not about truth
Truth Objectively Exists

First off, this debate is about whether truth exists, and whether truth is true, regardless of whether someone believes it. My argument: Truth does exist. Without truth, what can we be sure of? Without truth, nothing in school is worth learning. Without truth, Life is not worth living. I, for one, am absolutely sure that (using numbers, not numerals) 2+2=4. A NUMERAL is a word or symbol that we, as humans, have chosen to represent a certain quantity. A NUMBER is a quantity, regardless of what it is called. While the numeral, or name of a number may change, the quantity does not change. (http://www.differencebetween.com...) When I use this equation, I talk of numbers, not numerals. when I say the statement above, I mean the quantity that we label "2" plus a quantity that we label "2" equals the quantity that we label "4". I know that because we came up the words "two" and "four", one could say that the statement "two plus two equals four" could mean anything, and therefore is not necessarily true. that is why I mentioned that this equation was dealing with numbers, and not numerals. The quantity that we label "Two" plus the quantity that we label "Two" equals the quantity that we label "Four". The above statement is true, regardless of what we label the quantities. The above statement is true, regardless of whether someone believes it. Facts are Facts, and Truth is Truth, regardless of whether it is believed.
It is cruel to keep animals in zoos

Please excuse my spelling mistakes. It is difficult to type on a phone. Firstly, not all animals are at wild parks and secondly im sure many people would rather go to a Wild Life park and see animals run free and live in their natural habit than see a lion sleep or a Hippo poo.. If a family really wanted to go to a wild park, im sure they would all chip in. And have a lifelong memory to share
It is cruel to keep animals in zoos

Firstly I would like to please excuse my self for the bad grammar used in Argument 2, I wrote "i" instead of "I", this was incidental. You were saying that a trip to the zoo is something children aren't going to remember, that is untrue and proves to me that you haven't quite got your facts set in concrete... You also said that people should spend $2000-$3000 on a trip overseas to see that same animals that you find in the zoo. This is an unreasonable statement and I suggest you do a bit of research... Most people cannot afford an expensive family holiday to Africa, where as most people can afford a trip to the zoo.. I rest my case... Thanks
It is cruel to keep animals in zoos

To "counter argue" your first opinion regarding extinction. Lets take for instance Tiri Tiri Matangi. Now I do believe you are familiar with this "recreational park". It is currently on a very successful breeding program, in a natural friendly enviroment. Secondly, Wild Life parks and Recreational parks .They are both alot better than zoo's. If a family really wanted something to their child would remember as well as themselves what would they do" Spend $100-150 on going to a zoo only to forget within months OR spend $2000-3000 on a family trip to Africa to see thrse amazing animals in their natural habit and their natural behaving AND remember this for a lifetime. Which would you choose???