BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Suicide be legal

"Better and longer lives for other people." This had me going for a minute. Do you really believe if a child's parents decided to kill themselves one day because they couldn't deal with the stress of this economic crisis that the quality of that child's life would really increase? There are many people on the world, but not too many that suicide has to be our final option. It's the amazing amount of people that have given you access to your Niki's and TV's and much more than you realize. Do people starve in Africa because of overpopulation? In part, yes. But could we DO something about it, such as basic aid and financial help rather than telling them to kill themselves? Absolutely. We shouldn't rule out birth control either. Suicide is a ridiculous idea to ending the pain and suffering on Earth because it would just cause more pain and suffering. If your heart really aches for the lives of the people on this planet then DO something to help. Don't give a cowardly solution to a serious problem.
Should Suicide be legal

"If everyone who had once contemplated suicide had decided to go through with it then there would be a much smaller population on Earth." Actually, thats what we need. There are too many people on Earth. The Earth is way over populated. Humans create so much pollution which hurts the enviroment and animals. Everyone dies sooner or later anyways. The people who commit suicide will most likely save themselves from suffering. Legal Suicide = Less People = Less Polution = Better and longer lives for other people.
Should Suicide be legal

Suicide, without considering factors like a deathly illness, should not be legal. When someone considers suicide, he usually is in a state of severe stress or depression, possibly due to chemical changes or unnatural reasons. In other words he does not have clear judgement to make such a permanent and devastating decision. If everyone who had once contemplated suicide had decided to go through with it then there would be a much smaller population on Earth. The idea that suicide involves only one individual is completely false; someone may touch thousands of others from the extremely personal relationship from father to son to to the impersonal but widespread effect of a popular idol to his fans. In this respect suicide can effect millions of people and negatively impact their lives. The decision to give up shouldn't be their decision because not only will so many others disagree with the thought of killing yourself, but yourself in another state of mind would also disagree with that decision. If suicide wasn't illegal then the state would be encouraging people to end their lives. Misguided individuals would kill themselves to get the insurance money for their families instead of taking the responsible action of providing for them. For all of these reasons, and the obvious immorality of taking away the gift of life, i strongly oppose the legality of suicide.
kids 5-17 should not be allowed to go to juvenile.

Good luck. Now, for my response to your initial argument: The entire reason Juvenile Detention Centers exist is to hold children under 18. Like it or not, some children commit felonies and crimes that are deemable by law to be subject to time in prison. Juvenile Detention Centers are created to prevent these children from entering real prison for potential hazardous situations occurring, as well as saving their record for more petty crimes from the idea that this person went to federal/state prison. As for your reasoning of disorders that could have caused their felonies, there are measures appropriate to guide people with diagnosed disorders. People are allowed to be declared unfit to have been responsible for their actions, and are given professional guidance and counseling. Cases are often dropped for these reasons. But, IF in court, a person who has mental disabilities or disorders has been deemed appropriate to be responsible for their actions, and that they were aware of the right decision, and that their decision was wrong, they MUST be sent to Juvenile Detention Centers. People who break the law are sent to prison because they need to learn from their mistakes JUST as much as to keep the innocent people outside safe. Without these JDCs, children would be allowed to break laws and commit crimes without any repercussions. It would be chaos. Thank you for reading, and I am hoping to have a wonderful debate with you.
Drinking age at 18

There is often debate at my school about what age people should legally be able to consume alcohol in the united states. The two ages which are being discussed are 18 and 21. I believe alcohol should be legal at 18. There have been many times which 18 year olds claim they would have called an ambulance for a too drunk friend but they did not want to be caught. as a result, many lives have been lost. What is your opinion?
if we allow killing similiar to partial birth abortion... accidental birth killing should be allowed

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for the challenge, and the willingness to debate this subject. Also, I would like to point out, the inference of the first Paragraph reads as such, "If Partial-Birth Abortion were allowed, then by extension, it should also be allowed to terminate a baby who was successfully delivered during an attempted abortion." This is what I shall base my argument upon. -------------------------- This extension should not be permitted for the following reason Partial-Birth Abortion (PBA) is meant to protect the health of the mother, as certain types of harmful abnormalities are not able to be spotted until much later in the pregnancy, Whereas an accidental birth , even though it was intended to be terminated, is still a live baby; one that has been safely delivered. The reason for the development of PBA was for the health of the mother, not just another form of abortion. While yes, it may be a somewhat gruesome procedure at times, it is designed to be used in certain cases. "Medical conditions and indications may develop after the first trimester (12 weeks) of pregnancy that could threaten the mother's life and/or health. Late-occurring medical conditions can include: -- Heart failure -- Severe or uncontrollable diabetes -- Serious renal disease -- Uncontrollable hypertension (high blood pressure) -- Severe depression (http://usliberals.about.com...)" Saying that killing a baby who has been delivered successfully, thus negating the reason for PBA, is the same as successfully aborting a baby that was threatening the life of it's mother, is not only wrong, but in fact, murder. That surviving baby should be allowed to live. Medical care should be provided for it until it is able to go home with a family. In this argument, you state as though the termination of a baby, in order to preserve the mother, is the same as killing a newborn child, who has been delivered successfully, albeit premature. Saying this would give anyone the excuse to claim killing their newborn child was done due to "accidental birth during an abortion" thus allowing people to legally commit Infanticide. I will now accept rebuttals from my opponent. Also, this is my first debate, so I would appreciate all input in order to better myself and my cases.
if we allow killing similiar to partial birth abortion... accidental birth killing should be allowed

if we would allow partial birth abortion, by extension, we should also allow killing the baby during an accidental birth that occurs during an attempted abortion. i would like a rhetorical debate. i am actually against this. but, i want someone who is for partial birth abortion etc but say they are against this to debate me. i am aware that partial birth is banned by federal law now... but it's a hypothetical debate. (we could also consider pregnancies that are beginning to be delievered, are aborted and then are removed, without a technical partial birth.) why allow one, but not the other? we might say that the birth point is our arbitrary magic point. but why is this arbitrary point of any true significance? the mother is not going to be hindered if we delivered the baby alive instead of aborting.... so her claim to body rights or emotional distress etc are just as valid or invalid with a born baby. we might decide that we have to decide a point... and any point will be arbitrary. and there's a slippery slope that cannot be escaped... any point you pick, a few minutes in difference is not really subtantial. but, why not choose a point that is at least more debateable to allow the abortion, and then ban it later on? if we're going that route, of banning abortion, that is, and trying to find points that are of worth in when to ban. if we are not trying to find a more plausible point... then why not follow partial birth to its logical conclusion and just kill the baby out of womb?
if we allow killing similiar to partial birth abortion... accidental birth killing should be allowed

"What my opponent fails to realise, is that as long as that baby is inside the mother, it can be life-threatening. Certain medical cases, such as 'Water on the Brain'[1] that cause the fetus's head to swell up to 2x-3x it's normal size and can lead to health complications in the mother. " if the baby is inside the mother, but able to be delivered... we could require it to be delivered instead of aborted. the mother then doesn't have that life threatening issue. if we allow the killing two minutes inside when it could jsut as easily be delivered... why not two minutes outside? if we won't accept one.... we are forced not to accept the other. if we accept one, we are forced to accept the other. the only thing that con can argue is a technicality.. the birth canal as a demarcation of when abortion should be allowed. but he has yet to provide a reasoned explanation of how or why that point matters beyond what is essentially a technical point. a technicality
if we allow killing similiar to partial birth abortion... accidental birth killing should be allowed

if the mother has all those problems that PBA would allow... but she's able to deliver the baby, why would we allow her to abort it? she essentially has all the same arguments with the baby two minutes inside her as she'd have two minutes outside of her. any distinction about the birth canal are merely technicalities... how are they not? i mean, you could argue the technicality, but you are not giving substantial differentiation... just a technicality. how is this more than baseless technicality at work? you say that it is infanticide, but only by technical definitions only. why would we get caught up about a baby being killed two minutes later outside of the womb, when two minutes before it was legal? if we allow the killing two minutes inside when it could jsut as easily be delivered... why not two minutes outside? if we won't accept one.... we are forced not to accept the other. if we accept one, we are forced to accept the other.
George W. Bush is probably the worst President of all Time.

Ok I guess, I would put him in the top 2. President Jimmy Carter screwed the US far worse than President Bush ever could have. It is because of Jimmy Carter's gross incompetents that Ronald Reagan looked like the second coming of Christ. Don't get me wrong Reagan is in my top 3 but it is always easy to look great when such a ridiculous excuse for a president proceeds you. Well my opponent has shown an interesting point of view and hasn't really shown facts so please vote for the one that has had the better argument.
George W. Bush is probably the worst President of all Time.

I am glad that someone has taken the time to actually respond to my debate topic. Unfortunately you were supposed to be on the opposite side of this debate. I find it hard to believe any president is of only 5% or 6% evil even my favorite presidents have bumped heads with me on frequent occasions. Hopefully you can give me more points pertaining to your side of the issue. I have a list of a number of the worst presidents who have hindered the country during their term. Bush was bad, Carter too ruined America and even Clinton hurt us. Hopefully you can provide the points for your side in the next round.
George W. Bush is probably the worst President of all Time.

My friend, we have similar ideas and view points. You state that Bush is PROBABLY the worst president ever. However, he is. Period. End of discussion. All Presidents have bad to them. Some have 5% bad. Some have 6% bad. But this one is 99% d-bag bad! I still have to respect the position which is where the 1% comes in to play. But, he is overall, the WORST president ever. There is no "probably" involved. He reminds me of the Racton from my home back thousands of years ago. There was a Racton whom no one would dare challenge. He was a weak fool whose father had gained power and therefore, procuring enough for his baby boy. The Racton was deadly. He killed for pleasure and said he did it to protect his people from religious extremists. He even put into place the Persons Against Total Racton Incursion and Objection to Treason Act which undoubtedly was the worst thing ever created. It was to protect peoples' freedoms by taking them away and to defend the nation from a threat that was never coming. This made the silly Racton happy. And Bush is just like the Racton so I shall call him Racton Bush. Thanks! - Cheeks
George W. Bush is probably the worst President of all Time.

The first person that took this debate wasted many peoples time by not responding to the debate. Hopefully the next person to take the debate seriously thank yo I would like to thank the person who debates me in this issue for taking their position and providing me with a chance to compare ideas. I would like to also thank the many people I know will be adding their comments and eventually voting. I simply ask if you are going to bad talk president Bush please do so humanely (this is a family friendly debate =) . I will like to keep the first topic concise so I can see where my opponent wants to take the debate. In this debate I will give a few reasons why I believe that President Bush is among the worst presidents of all times. I. He has been classified as a conservative and has claimed to run as one despite the fact that he is far from conservative. a. Fiscally he has increased government spending to almost three times as much as president Clinton who is suppose to be the more Liberal President. b. Government size, he has increased the role of government during his presidency with the Patriot Act and many other sister bills that have increased the role of the government and the lost of constitutionally protected freedom. II. Bush has been held high by "Republicans" as being someone strong on the war on terror. This hits home with me because I currently serve in the military and his military based decisions directly effect me. a. He has fought a poor war. (I am for War in Iraq and eliminating forces quickly). But it seems that we linger around in Iraq to keep the contractors earning money. We could have march through Iraq if we fought this like a real war. B. President Bush is for an open border which will allow terrorist and other individuals that mean the United States harm free access to our country and the social programs we have. III. He is not the most articulate president. This is not that big a deal but when people see the leader of one of the most powerful countries having a hard time getting through a speech it is really a testament to how poor our educational system is. Especially when President Bush advocates that immigrants learn English first. Click the following link to see our president in action. I do not hate the man nor do I feel he is pure evil like many do, I simply feel that through what he has promised as compared to what he has delivered he is in the category of worst three presidents of all time.
America is a large conglomerate of corporations not a democracy.

Yahoo News headline for today: " Rod Blagojevich (Illinois state governor) has been arrested on charges of conspiring to sell Barack Obama's open Senate seat." This is just one of many examples of political corruption motivated by money that have reached public eye. God knows what goes on beyond what makes it to media. In American public schools they teach us that everyone is equal, and free to be who they want to be. If you act up in school they force feed you ritalin or aterol or some other kind of screw you up pill but if you get caught with marijuana the rest of your life is screwed up, all so they can make a buck; meanwhile the alcoholic judge or politician gets busted with a hooker and posts their 50 k bail and works it out so that somehow they end up on pobation. Our DMV's and traffic courts use a drivers license like a leash, instead of actually making sure people on the road aren't too stupid to be driving they just say "if youre going this fast pay us". They allow anything on tv because it's profitable, and when a kid gets pregnant she goes to a state taxed abortion clinic where you can kill the baby. Im not bringing this up to argue about abortion, Im bringing it up because Im saying they allow it because for one it is profitable and it also helps control the population which means less work for the government.(Also, if you are going to touch on free will, refer to my previous statement about marijuana). In America, if you dont fit the image of the middle of the road Southern baptist, middle class white kid (not saying you must be white Im saying you must seem to be culturally white) then you aren't treated as equal, because unless you have the "Go democracy, america is awesome just like it is and I want to be the governments little posterboy" attitude you cant help them any. I would have to say that Americans are stupid, because they allow our government to have its way and screw up so many lives when our constitution gives us the right to kick them to the curb. As for voting, if you really believe in this day that your vote has anything to do with who is in office you are as naive as they come. This is my opening statement; you will forgive me that it is a little jumbled but I'm not focused today.
Gay Marriage Should be legal

500 character limitAt the heart of marriage is procreation and the raising of children properly for society. Studies have shown gays cannot raise children properly. Gay marriage does not help society, therefore they should not be able to get married or have the benefits. Gays getting married would hurt the meaning and sanctity that marriage is. It is logical to draw the line where it is now, because gay marriage does not benefit society, as seen ^Marriage would soon mean nothing if gays were in.
Jesus Christ, the person, Did Exist

If Jesus really was a figure who did not exist, in history it would be expected that some anti-Christian group would have made this known. In reality the most shielded group towards Jesus and early Christianity were the Jews, and ironically, they affirmed Jesus existence when they attempted to accuse the disciples of stealing Jesus" body from the tomb. Also we find Jesus material, and not in his favor, in the Jewish Talmud accusing him of treachery and leading Israel astray. Those that hated Christianity the most had to have discovered that Jesus was a figment of the early Christians imagination if he was, and expose it, and that should have been the end of Christianity. This is not what happened. They knew for a fact that Jesus existed, and in reality, he was a threat to them. Jewish polemic shared with Christians the conviction that the sepulcher was empty and then gave natural explanations for the event. Such positive evidence within a nonchristian based source is the heaviest type of evidence. Let us ask ourselves, why did the Jews attempt to explain away Jesus" tomb if there was no Jesus in the first place? It is simply because Jesus existed. John Crossan, of the "Radical Jesus" Seminar, writes: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be." Gerd Ludemann, known Atheist said this: "Jesus" death as a result of crucifixion is indisputable." Quadratus was an Athenian bishop and direct disciple of the actual Apostles. He is often seen as the first Christian apologist because of his defense he gave to Emperor Hadrian during early church history.He points out that some who were healed and resurrected by Jesus lived until modern times. (They would be eye witnesses of the man Jesus) "The deeds of our Savior were always before you, for they were true miracles. Those that were healed, those that were raised from the dead, who were seen, not only when healed and when raised, but were always present. They remained living a long time, not only while our Lord was on earth, but likewise when he had left the earth. So that some of them have also lived to our own times."
Jesus Christ, the person, Did Exist

I accept your assertion pro, and I also thank you for the opportunity to debate on this topic. Before we begin I would like to establish that the BOP does lie on PRO as he is making the claim, said claim being that Jesus of Nazareth existed and that there is proof of his existence. I want to establish this because had I not been made aware of this claim or position by Pro, or others of the Christian Faith, I would not come to this conclusion myself. On the other hand, one can come to the conclusion that Adolf Hitler existed through the documented evidence of his actions and the remaining physical evidence of his life. I will be taking the con perspective on this issue for the simple reason that while it is not impossible that there was a man called Jesus who lived in the area described by the New Testament, there simply isn't a stable foundation of evidence upon which to place that assertion. While the Bible does give an account of Jesus' life, it also speaks of outlandish things such as global floods and talking snakes which have just as much evidence behind them as Christianity's head figure has behind him. My point is that religion does not count here as it is faith based and this is a debate that requires substantial evidence, whereas faith is belief without evidence. I will bring much more to this debate in the next rounds, evaluating the claims to be made by pro and the evidence provided by him, as it will be since he has the burden of proof. I look forward to arguing this topic and I hope that Pro will be able to keep it respectful and focused as I am.