BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
music and art education made compulsory for all school students

Thank you for participating ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As people are being forced to study music and art education, they get stress which is highly not beneficial to a person's health When people are being forced to do what they do not want to do, they obviously would get stress. These stress causes many diseases such as diarrhea, irritable bowl syndrome, high blood pressure etcetera. I think that music and art is not that important to us to risk our own health while doing what we do not want to do.
The 21 year old drinking age should be lowered.

On I. The reason I cornered you is because it is hypocritical to only lower the drinking age, when the same problems exist for people under 18 as well. I am not advocating kids being drunk. You ignored the fact that there are always going to be kids who will get drunk. In fact I am saying less kids will get drunk in my alternative, and the ones who will do it regardless of what the law says will be better off, but I'll get to that later. On II. There are developmental problems with obese children as well. See: "The developing person through childhood and adolescence By Kathleen Stassen Berger" You said, "courts aren't taking kids out of High School left and right because of a alcohol offense. " I have 3 responses: (1) It is even the threat of going to jail that creates problems. If you think you might go to jail, you will be less likely to ask for help for yourself, or other minors if it involves alcohol. (2) Even if they don't go to jail, having this on their record can ruin all future opportunities in life including colleges. (3) It is still not okay to let even a few go to jail. The Alternative: First, under-18 drinking is inevitable. If you make it legal, then the kids that are going to drink no matter what, will be better off. Multiple reasons: You ignored my argument that parents and the community will be more involved if the drinking age is abolished. Also, kids will learn to drink responsibly and won't do it in the shadows which leads to bingeing. And they won't be afraid to get help for alcohol related incidents. Most importantly, you ignored the fact that making something illegal essentially makes it a "forbidden fruit. " If we were to make it legal, it wouldn't be "rebellious" to drink it anymore, decreasing consumption. In my alternative, less kids will drink and the ones that do will be do it more responsibly and out in the open. Enforcement is impossible and underage kids drinking is inevitable. Make it safer.
The 21 year old drinking age should be lowered.

I. My opponent has tried to corner me by having an ALL OR NOTHING attitude. In doing so he has completely missed my argument about minors receiving all of the rights with little to no responsibility. Furthermore, he ignores the tag of argument "I" itself. We must show them the world before our future kids begin to turn to alcohol once there is a problem at school. Flow through points. Onto what my opponent did argue. The whole framework of my opponents argument is to try to allow people to make their own choices as long as they don't harm anyone else (Libertarian view). However, my first argument concluded that minors are at such a tender development stage, that we can not allow irresponsible parenting to be the death of children. This would in fact surpass the "Libertarian view" and would in fact do more harm than good. Therefore, what I truly want to reach in this debate is a settlement. I truly believe that a 21 year old drinking age offers "nothing" while no drinking age at all offer "all". Both of these stances are truly too aggressive. The middle ground allows the government to step in ONLY DURING EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, and thus provides the greatest net-benefit. II. There is a unique harm from alcool compared to McDonalds. Alcohol infringes upon brain development and prevents kids from reaching their full potential. The difference therefore is that alcohol is a guaranteed harm (even with small amounts) compared to McDonalds which can be fine even if the person eats there every week. The brain development is much stronger from minors compared to adults. Not so with McDonalds. The evidence you presented said that people under the age of 21 can go to jail. Surely, however, courts aren't taking kids out of High School left and right because of a alcohol offense. Not to mention that lowering the age will increase tolerance. "Alternative": Kids can already legally drink at home with parents as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
The 21 year old drinking age should be lowered.

On I: "If we were to simply say that minors can now make their own choices similar to adults, imagine how our world would change." No one is suggesting that, and as you later point out it is the job of the parent to control their kids choices. Yes there are irresponsible parents, but then you want to use irresponsible parents as an excuse to regulate all parents. By natural extension of your logic, since there are some irresponsible parents, children should be raised entirely by the state to ensure they are raised correctly. And, this is not a significant issue and wouldn't increase if the drinking age were abolished. On II. Health Effects Obesity is the number one killer of children. By your logic, McDonalds should be outlawed for children. Furthermore, there are severe health effects on grown adults as well. With this argument, you legitimize prohibition. In fact, alcohol is the number 3 killer among adults. http://www.come-over.to... "Finally, kids under the age of 18 can not go to jail or court for alcoholic offenses. Also, if the parents don't mind if their children drink, then they can protect them from law enforcement." Not true, kids can go to jail in some states for 180 days for just consuming and it can go on their record and potentially ruin their lives. http://www.txdot.gov... The Alternative: "our natural instincts to be drawn towards the forbidden would be suppressed and while there will still be those drawn towards the horrors of alcohol abuse, far fewer will be involved in the binge style drinking. "[Researches] argue that by allowing children to drink at home under supervision, they can learn responsible alcohol use... and thus be better prepared for when they are on their own." http://www.dailykos.com... Kids will feel less pressure, learn to drink responsibly, and their lives won't be ruined by the Government if they get caught.
The 21 year old drinking age should be lowered.

There are significant reasons why a drinking age is necessary which I will get to. But it seems as if my opponent has so far agreed with the fact that an 18 year old drinking age is AT LEAST better than a 21 year old age limit. Therefore, I will proceed to prove that an 18 year old drinking age is better than no drinking age. I. We need to show minors a reasonable life before they can handle full responsibilities and rights. ---If we were to simply say that minors can now make their own choices similar to adults, imagine how our world would change. When I was eight, I used to think that I would be able to survive without my parents. I now know that the 'job' I had in mind would not have been able to do what I thought it could and it simply would not have been beneficial for my welfare. Now, imagine if I did have these rights and responsibilities, imagine if 8 year old citizens began to have sleepovers with vodka shots to start off the night. Is this really a world you want to live in? My opponent may respond by saying that parents need to be responsible and set rules. But my opponent knows just as well as I do that there are irresponsible parents that would let such things occur, and with my opponents viewpoint, the law could do nothing to stop it. We aren't protecting minors from "themselves", we are protecting them from the unknown. Not to mention we would officially be giving minors all of the rights, without any of the responsibility which is much worse than my original point in my case. II. Health Effects --- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... "Adolescence represents a unique stage of sensitivity to the impact of alcohol on behavior and brain function." Finally, kids under the age of 18 can not go to jail or court for alcoholic offenses. Also, if the parents don't mind if their children drink, then they can protect them from law enforcement. Therefore most of my opponents points therefore fall. Vote Pro! Thanks and Good Luck!
The 21 year old drinking age should be lowered.

I will be representing the CON side of the argument. The 21 year old drinking age should not be lowered. It should be abolished. 1. By advocating the state allow 18-20 year olds but no one else, only legitimizes that the state has any role in "protecting us from ourselves." Obviously, people under the age of 18 choose to drink. The enforcement of the drinking law has proven impossible. The state is not here to protect us from ourselves. Parents are the ultimate authority in a child's life. If some kid under the age of 18 chooses to drink and gets caught by the police, the police should not have the right to harass the kid and take them to jail and then make them go to court. The punishment should purely be up to the parent, not the state. 2. Hypocrisy "There is no doubt that citizens under the age of 21 drink repetitively and consistently. Unfortunately, they are being stranded when they are in the middle of no where. When they are drinking at an unfamiliar place, with unfamiliar people, with the pressure of getting home without getting "caught", an atrocities become imminent." I completely agree, however, this standard should be applied to not just the 18-20 year olds but everyone under 18. More kids under 18 will be saved if you don't make them afraid of going to jail. 3. Conclusion While I think lowering the age to 18 is better than the current system, a complete abolition of drinking laws should take place. By saying the state has any role in having a drinking age, only legitimizes their position that 18-20 year olds should not drink. In a society without a drinking age, the community and parents would take a more active role in policing their own kids and the punishments would be equatable to their actions.
The 21 year old drinking age should be lowered.

I will be generally arguing that the age should be 18. I assume my opponent will be arguing that 21 is the appropriate age, however they have the right to argue that it should be 21 or above. They could as well to re-initiate prohibition. I. 18-20 year old citizens have all of the responsibility, with only some of the rights. ---In our society today, it's a little ridiculous that people of the age of 18 can serve for our country, but do not get the freedom to choose whether or to go out and enjoy a round with their friends. We pay taxes, but we are limited in our entertainment rights. Apparently, the government decided that we have enough responsibility to bear life in prison with our decisions, but yet do not have enough responsibility to decide if we want to drink. It simply does not add up. II. The drinking age at 21, raises other limitation of rights to 21. ---The U.S. really has two separate 'adult ages'. The problem is that the age where you can be forced to live by yourself is 18, but several hotel age limits and even some apartment age limits are 21 (depending on the state law). The thing is that these laws were made from a domino effect from the 21 year old drinking age. Hotel's didn't want underage citizens drinking in their hotel, so they made the minimum age 21. Since then, our full rights are not obtained until 21, but once again, our responsibility is obtained immediately upon turning 18. III. "Under-age" drinking already happens and these people would be safer if the drinking age was lowered. ---There is no doubt that citizens under the age of 21 drink repetitively and consistently. Unfortunately, they are being stranded when they are in the middle of no where. When they are drinking at an unfamiliar place, with unfamiliar people, with the pressure of getting home without getting "caught", an atrocities become imminent. In the end, if you are 18, you ought to have the right to choose. Therefore you must vote pro. Thanks and good luck!
Classic Rock is the best genre

Although I see how metal is not trash, I still say that all Jazz/Pop is trash just because, well we all know why, but rap(besides Eminem) is mostly just sounds and slurs thrown together by some dude. Honestly it just sounds like trash to me. I'm not a huge fan of metal just because my friend plays only Metallica and Five finger Death punch when he's around me(which is like 2 hours, and I honestly just get sick of hearing it. Although I don't agree with some of the choices the bands have made, I still stand by my claim that classic rock is one of the more superior genres. Also rock uses the same instruments as jazz, they just find a way to mix it up and make it different unlike jazz.
Classic Rock is the best genre

I believe that Classic Rock and Classic Metal (They're not the same, but are similar and have greatly influenced each other) are great styles of music but they do not have the same technicality, and emotion of other genres of music. ------In Defense of Rap------ Rap is arguably the genre with the lowest skill floor, yet has an extremely high skill ceiling. The art within Rap comes from the lyrics. While some lyrics are harsh and meaningless, some have great meaning, and are crafted by those with a vast understanding of the English language. Some Rap is bad, some is good. Try listening to 'lyrical rappers'. Start with Eminem, he's the most well known. ------In Defense of Jazz----- I agree, Jazz has become saturated. The reason a lot of Jazz sounds the same is because (without getting to deep into music theory) it uses a lot of the same instruments, scales, times. Some Jazz is good, while some is bad just like all other genres. ------In Defense of Pop----- It's trash -----In Defense of Metal & Rock----- Metal is a very vast cloth of sub-genres. I include Rock as sub-genre of metal. I divide Rock and Metal into four Eras. 1. Classic - Older Than the 80s 2. Pre Tool - 80's - 90's 3. Post Tool - 90's - 06 (give or take 6 years) 4. Modern - 06 to present I won't go into Classic as you already understand and know the artists from that era. I'll go into why I use the band "Tool" as a marker now. Tool is a progressive/grunge/rock/metal band created in the early 90's, they were a large turning point in the rock/metal industry. Tool arguably left a huge mark, as unlike many other bands from that era people such as myself are still waiting eagerly even after a decade for a new album. During the Pre-Tool Era rock and metal was compositionally simple. (Not to go into music theory unless you want to) During this era a lot of the founding metal bands came up such as Metallica, Slayer, Anthrax, and Megadeth. The modern era is where it gets wild. Many different sub-genres of metal arose. This gave birth to both good and bad bands/genres. During this era more progressive bands following in Tool's footsteps arose, as well as several other genres. The post-Tool and modern era did give birth to your disliked "yelling at the top of their lungs" style. This is a super, super, super, super over-simplification of the evolution of rock/metal. I'd like to see ye' arguments. Round one was just for acceptance and ground-works right?
Divorcees should be allowed to vote against Gay Marriage Issues

I would hate to have ever done a single sin in your belief system. All sins are equal in God's eyes, and as such are equally forgivable. That not withstanding in my argument, I'll get back to the point at hand. I will look at your idea of "shouldn't vote". I believe your opinion is that divorcees have no understanding of the reason/ workings of marriage, therefore they should not have the right to vote on this issue. I have no idea onto the workings of a car, yet I have no problem voting on whether or not tax money should be used to help auto manufacturers. Because I do have a say as to what I and my children will have to live through if that tax goes through. Divorcees should vote because they are affecting others no matter what.
Divorcees should be allowed to vote against Gay Marriage Issues

< > Not if they're sentenced to death or life in prison. Divorce is a sin that sends both parties to hell, as I understand it. Not being able to vote should be a life-long status after divorce. You should only be married once, as is the intent in all religious doctrines. Multiple marriages is multiple spits on the face of God. In fact, it may be urinating on God at that point. As for unwilling divorcees, they could've saved themselves a one-way ticket to hell had they waited to get married instead of rushing such a serious matter. They used poor judgment and agreed to marry the wrong person. A sin is a sin and hell is hell.
Divorcees should be allowed to vote against Gay Marriage Issues

My argument was, sadly, in the realm of legality, not in the realm of "should." I will try to keep it in that realm from here on out. Prisoners are eventually allowed out of prison if they have shown that they can be good citizens again. If you've been divorced for 25 years from your first marriage and have had a full and committed relationship since then, are they allowed to vote, or would all divorcees be excluded? What if there have been several broken marriages before a much longer kept one? What about the partner in the marriage that had not been the reason for the divorce? Are they allowed to vote as they have not "spit in the face of god" and did not want to break up? All divorced people who are registered to vote should vot
Divorcees should be allowed to vote against Gay Marriage Issues

I am debating whether they 'should' be able to or not in regards to Gay Marriage Issues, not whether they may or may not vote. I agree that man will make mistakes, however there should be consequences for making them. Criminals make mistakes which land them in jail; the consequence is to take away their freedoms. Since they made a "mistake", should we just dismiss it and allow them their freedom? Divorcees should not be allowed to vote on any issues regarding marriage for they are failures at it and entered into that eternal commitment, not just with another person, but also God, only to break that vow. All of your criminal examples are not necessarily divorcees, so this debate has nothing to do with them unless they are divorced.
Divorcees should be allowed to vote against Gay Marriage Issues

My position in this debate is as follows: No matter what a person has done in their past, a person has the unalienable right to vote. In so long as they are a citizen of the country that they are living in. And, as such, may vote for or against Gay Marriage Issues. Man, in the sense of mankind, will make mistakes. This is an inherent part of being a person. Assuming that my opponent lives in the United States of America (USA from here on) then my opponent lives in a country that allowes murderers, rapists, theives, adulterers, and idol worshipers to vote. Interestingly, it also lets liars, prideful people, and those who are quick to anger vote as well. These also spit in the face of God, yet they can vote. Divorcees then may vote.
Divorcees should be allowed to vote against Gay Marriage Issues

Assumed: Marriage is a holy, unbreakable union in the eyes of your god. Assumed: You are a theist. I think it is at the height of hypocrisy for divorcees to be able to vote against Gay Marriage Issues. If you are willing to break a commitment and bond that is supposed to be 'eternal', you should not be able to vote against Gay Marriage if you are divorced. To look away from religious doctrine and spit on the face of a god by getting a divorce should not entitle those people to quote scripture to support hate-mongering biased views; nor should they be allowed to vote on an issue that they took so lightly.
spaying and neutering should be mandatory until pet population reduced

I would like to make a point and say that pet owners have the full responsibility of taking care of their pets (feeding, grooming, washing, etc), and therefore, the caretaker should be allowed to determine what they want to do with their pet(s). They are the ones assuming responsibility, like parents would be taking care of a young child. The parents get to decide what happens to their child because they have the authority to, much like pet owners. Requiring that all pets must be spayed or neutered results in mostly mixed breeds of dogs and cats. All purebred breeders would run out of work since they would not be able to breed the dogs or cats. Also, as we pointed out before, a large percentage of pet owners would not be able to afford the operation, resulting in fewer dog/cat adoptions. What happens once the pet population does reduce? I don't think that the pet population is as big of a deal as the stray pet population. I mean who cares how many pets there are in the US as long as they are taken care of and loved. We need to work with those people who just abandon their pets after getting them because of the huge and unexpected responsibility. I am not going to reply to any of your points/ facts made until you do two things: provide a source for that information and rebut the flaws I have pointed out. "Obesity is a problem in" What's the rest of that statement? Uhm, I think you forgot to copy one part. I believe that my opponent just copied and pasted facts from uncited websites and did not respond to ANY of our points. I would like to point out that the flaws that we mentioned weren't responded to, so they are still valid points until you disprove them. Therefore your argument is invalid since you have yet to respond to the flaws we pointed out. Thank you and I await your response.