BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Christian hell is a morally abhorrent concept

Hello popculturepooka & fellow debaters, This debate has arisen from a forum thread for which the link is below. http://www.debate.org... I would maintain that Hell, in the Christian tradition is a Morally abhorrent concept, and will be arguing this assertion. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening arguments Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Closing statements - no new arguments I am honoured to enter this debate and as a new forum member look forward to an enlightening and respectful discourse with a more experienced member. Sir, I leave to you to accept and will then proceed with my opening arguments. Respectfully, Ben
teenage sex

it appears my opponent has chosen not to extent the debate at least for now. The argument offered by my opponent previously was the punishment imposed on the girls was justified because they knew their behavior was against the law and chose to engage in it anyway. In the case of the oldest girl Pro suggests promiscuous sex might be acceptable but underage drinking isn't because it has an adverse on the child's brain. Pro argues the girls should be punished at least because their conduct is against the law but didn't specify if s/he agrees with the punishment imposed. I agree the girls have broken the law and should receive some type of sanction but don't think the punishment they received is what is best for them. The alternatives to prison include a term in a secure juvenile facility although I would question the appropriateness of that as well. Besides the scenario leaves out specifically why they weren't sent to a children's correction institution. although the label habitual in describing their offenses might give a clue. So what are the alternatives: corporal punishment, community service, fines, mandatory counseling or some combination of them.
teenage sex

Even if one were to stipulate to the girl's 'crimes' as I have insisted on in the opening argument. These are what are known as status offenses -- crimes which can only be committed by children in archaic legal language by infants. That last word is important because you don't or shouldn't send infants to adult correctional facilities when their 'crimes' are not the crimes of adults. To clarify the 19 year old girl was sent to the women's reformatory as a wayward minor for sexual promiscuity by a child in addition to underage drinking. The purpose of her sentence and that of the younger children is to protect them from the consequences of their own behavior. That is fine and laudable but there are better and more appropriate ways to do it. In other words society is within its rights to address the girls inappropriate behavior but there are better, more appropriate, and effective ways to do it
teenage sex

I am going to be quite frank here. The girls knew that the actions that there were committing is against the law. The girls probably thought that they were "cool" or that was just the "norm" in today's society. They are minors and shouldn't be engaging in these types of things. Even if the 19-year-old was old enough to have sex, she was not old enough to drink. Underage drinking can effect the brain and how it works because the brain doesn't stop developing till you're about my age (21).
teenage sex

Three girls ages 16, 17, and 19 are sentenced to terms not to exceed three years in the State Reformatory For Women after being convicted as wayward minors. The girls were found to be at risk for moral depravity for habitual underage drinking and for engaging in premarital sexual intercourse My opponent may choose to defend the girl's sentence or to oppose it. I will take the opposite side from my opponent. Participants in this debate must accept as true the basic facts listed in the scenario. However other facts may be inferred.
Neon Colors are better Than Other colors.

Neon colors aint got nothing on normal colors. Let's take a look at my boy yellow. Yellow is a cool color, nice and bright. What happens when you get neon yellow? I'll tell ya, It hurts your eyes. If you look at neon colors after being in a dark room, you will hurt your eyes. Something else that neon colors don't do well, dark colors. What about black? You can't get neon black and black is just the coolest of the cool. Neon colors also don't blend together as well as normal colors. Now let's take a look at which ones look better. http://www.bing.com... http://www.bing.com... http://www.bing.com... Normal colors make up most things in nature including the images listed above. They are just to awesome and blend together better than neon colors.
Story debate.

This is story debate. My opponent must write a short fiction in his first round, and I will attempt to continue it. Sex, swearing, and violence are of course permitted. RULES: 1. Questions or clarifications should be asked in the comments, not the debate.2. A forfeit will result in the loss of conduct, and an unreadable prose or grammar will result in a S/G loss. If both debaters do not fulfill these conditions, ALL SEVEN POINTS should awarded to the one the voter believes wrote the best, overall. Voters need to give reasons for their decisions.3. Quality should be judged upon writing style, prose, plotting, concepts, originality, etc. I believe that is all.
California should adopt New York's ban on sugary drinks

It sounds like it's going to be fun. :)Points1. This act is a direct violation of freedom of choice. The government doesn’t have the right to choose our diet. America isn’t a totalitarian dictatorship where the government gets to decide what we eat or drink. Because of freedom of choice, the government can’t restrict our portions. What comes next? Restricting how many slices of cake you can eat? This law is just part of a string of “food nanny” laws Bloomberg has passed (1). The only reason he got this law and others, such as the restriction of regular sized candy for trick or treating, and the banning of salty foods given to homeless shelters, the only reason he got these laws passed is that he runs them over a board of health that he has chosen himself in office (2)! A majority of New Yorkers are opposed to the ban (3)2. This ban can affect small businessesAccording to James Brandt of Latham and Watkins attorneys, “It’s not going to stop anybody from drinking soda, it’s going to push people from the Sabrett guy to the Duane Reade or the 7-11. ” This law bans sodas from “Food service establishments”, such as restaurants, delis, and stadiums. However, this law excludes grocery stores and 7-11’s. This ban will stop people from buying their soda at small delis or restaurants and send them to grocery stores and 7-11s, which are apparently not food service establishments. One of the most popular 16 oz. drink is the Big Gulp, sold exclusively at 7-11s. Judge, this ban, while aiming to stop people from drinking big sodas, will just push them all to big businesses instead of small delis and restaurants.3. Warning labels are a much better alternativeIn 2003, when the government saw that cigarette sales had surged, their response wasn’t to ban cigarettes, or somehow restrict how many cigarettes are in one pack. Warning labels are extremely effective, too (4,5), and they would be a great alternative for sodas. Warning labels made smokers with a gap in knowledge on the detrimental effects of smoking more aware of the harm smoking can do (5). Many advocacy groups are trying to get warning labels put on sodas to warn consumers (1). Judging by the fact that warning labels are so effective on cigarettes, we can ascertain that putting these labels on sodas would provide all the benefits of the 16 oz. soda bans, without any of the doubts. In conclusion, nutrition should be an informed, personal choice. We know what is good for our own health, and the government shouldn’t make decisions about what is good for us and what is not. Sources(1) cbs(2) nycgov(3) abc news(4) science daily(5) tobacco control Please post your expansions and refute my points.
California should adopt New York's ban on sugary drinks

Definitions: 1. Adopt:Take up or start to use or follow. 2. Sugary drinks: 16 ounce (or more) cups or bottles of sugary sodas or other beverages Points (leaving out refutations) 1. Obesity in California is a growing epidemic, and studies prove that there is a direct correlation between sugary drinks and rising obesity levels. 2. Studies have proven that lowering portion size lowers obesity levels. 3. There is a financial incentive to adopt this policy, as obesity costs California billions of dollars every year. I have been asked by dragonb95 to expand on these points in round 2.
California should adopt New York's ban on sugary drinks

Hello readers! My name is Jack and today we will be debating sugary drinks. Please pay no attention to my opponent's username when judging conduct. He is just making a bad joke.The government should exist as a protector of the citizens, not a nanny. When it comes down to beverages, consumers have a right to choose what they are drinking.DEFINITIONSCalifornia: The entire state of California RepublicAdopt: Enforce the laws for the whole state without ANY changes to it's articles, except technicalities pertaining to the differences of the two places.New York: New York City, New YorkBan on sugary drinks: Michael Bloomberg's ban on the sale of drinks greated than 16 oz. in FSE (food service establishments). Exceptions include water, things with more than 50% milk, etc.Sugary drinks: Soda CONSTRUCTMy team's points are the following:(1) This act is a direct violation of freedom of choice.(2) This ban can affect small businesses negatively.(3) Warning Labels are a much better alternative.Assuming my opponent posts his points punctually (no refutations yet) we can begin the debate and start refuting each other's points and expanding in round two.
Police Profiling

As I explained in each round of this debate there was no planned review of the cars, no systematic approach, no directive to stop cars or surveil cars in any pattern whatsoever. I have explained repeatedly that this was not the case; it just did not happen. For whatever reason, each of your responses in this debate focus on this concept and the technology associated with some uniform patterned surveillance, rather than the debate topic of police profiling and the facts that occurred. My focus and the focus of this debate is whether police profiling, which is what occurred in this case, is appropriate. CT obviously ruled that it is not, which is why CT was the second state to pass the law against it, and is as of 2011 considering a stronger version of the bill in the Senate. Economic profiling exists in CT and is exactly what took place here. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that probable cause exists where "the facts and circumstances within [the police officer's] knowledge" are of a "reasonably trustworthy" basis to "warrant a man of reasonable caution" to believe that an offense has been or is about to be committed (Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S. Ct. 280, 69 L. Ed. 543 [1925]). Probable cause will not be found where the only evidence of criminal activity is an officer's "good information" or "belief" (Aguilar v. Texas, 378U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 [1964]). The point here is that yes the driver was driving a car that had an expired registration, no question, but that the officer ran the plate of the car without probable cause, which is required under the law in the state of CT. An exception would be a controlled methodology in place like a checkpoint or electronic surveillance with a planned uniform procedure in place, but as I explained already this was not the case. in addition, the driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the automobile that he or she is driving; (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 564 [1971]), and an expectation that that privacy will not be interrupted whimsically and without probable cause. A police officer must possess an "articulable" and "reasonable" suspicion that an automobile has violated a state or local traffic law to stop the driver, (Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S. Ct. 1391, 59 L. Ed. 2d 660 [1979]). Furthermore, police officers are entrusted with the powers to conduct investigations, to make arrests, and occasionally to use lethal force in the line of duty, but these powers must be exercised within the parameters authorized by the law. Power exercised outside of these legal parameters transforms law enforcers into lawbreakers.
Police Profiling

First of to counter your last point that the Officer could have spent that time stopping a crime or responding to a "real police matter". I believe that the person in question driving around in an unregistered car is a "real police matter". There may be more pressing matters to attend to, however you cant claim its not a police matter. In my argument you don't know that the police officer was not scanning every car that went past and running there details for: Stolen vehicles, uninsured vehicles, unregistered vehicles. I you wondering how they could do that ill include a video in my sources that shows a device like the one described in action, it has cameras on the front, sides and back so it could easily read the registration number where it was parked. You stated that the officer claimed the car was pulled over because it was unregistered, not so the officer could check if it was unregistered, not because the officer thought it was unregistered. Because the officer knew it was unregistered. This also points to the likely use of cameras on the police vehicle to check out the registration plates of passing vehicles. Lastly there is obviously a basis and probable cause upon which to act if the car has been scanned and found unregistered by a device such as the one mentioned earlier. Source: http://www.youtube.com...
Police Profiling

All the facts of the events that took place were provided. The officer did not pull over every car or every other car or any other pragmatic or random scenario. The officer, when asked, did not give a reason for running the plate or any other explanation to which you speak, like I am pulling over every 15th car in a random registration check and you were unlucky, etc. The officer gave no explanation why she ran the plate, and again, provided no explanation or methodology upon which her pursuit of the vehicle was based. Thus, running the plate, despite the vehicle committing no traffic violation is where the police profiling began. Your statement that "the officer needs to occasionally pull over cars" is exactly the the profiling behavior that concerns me, and obviously concerns other states like CT, where these events took place, to enact police profiling laws. In addition to running amok over the CT profiling law, the officer trampled over the driver's 4th Amendment Rights, guaranteeing the driver to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause and the driver's 14th Amendment Rights, requiring equal treatment for all citizens under the law. This incident, for me, led to the practice of discrimination based on based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or any other particular identity, and undermines the basic human rights and freedoms to which every person is entitled. This, for me, is as clear cut as it gets, because enabling the police to wield a sword with no basis or in an unequal basis, without methodology, without probable cause upon which to act, is a policing power without ethics, without controls and without law, which leads to tyranny and anarchy, and is simply un American... Not to mention the opportunity cost lost of that same officer, had she chosen to perform her duties according to the law, could have spent that same time foiling al crime or responding to a real police matter.
Police Profiling

How do you know that the officer had not chosen to say, pull over every 10th car that passed her or every 15th car and check the car registration plate to check that it was registered. I will presume that the car in question is not registered as it is not clear to me. If the officer had been about to pull the car over but then realised that the car was an expensive car and therefore presumed it would be registered this is an equal example of profiling. The officer needs to occasionally pull over cars in this case it seems clear that the car pulled over was simply the unlucky car that got picked. You have in fact shown no proof that the officer in question had not in fact pulled over every car that went past, therefore defeating the claim of unfair profiling.
Police Profiling

Here' s a real life example. I am looking for you big time debaters to tell your position, either way. It's 5:00pm and a beautiful, mint condition Maserati enters Route One (the road from Maine to Florida). This car is unusual in the town but it is a wealthy seaside town. The car travels in traffic about 1/4 mile on that road, where some construction is taking place, so no one is speeding. The car, driving about 20 miles per hour, passes a police car parked perpendicularly. The police pulls out behind the car and then pulls the car over. When the officer is confronted and asked why she pulled the car over, she answers because the car was not registered, a fact she would only know by running the plate. To me this is a type of profiling, as the officer had no probable cause to pull the driver over and ran the plate for no reason.
Abortion

In this final round of debate I will only be answering the questions asked by pro and give the reasons why I believe pro to be wrong. "Now, have you considered the cost of not letting anyone have an abortion?" The cost is minimal. You believe that children don't have a right to life because you think that child will be stuck in a foster house and be unwanted. While unwanted children IS an issue, it isn't a large enough issue to warrant taking their life before it truly begins outside the womb. Many of these children can go on to become healthy members of society, contributing so much. "Who is going to take care of those children? Who is going to pay for it?" I don't believe that hardship cases deserve to be "snuffed out" just because they have a good chance at being orphaned. If a parent can't handle a child, maybe they shouldn't engage in sexual activity until they can. It isn't right, morally, to end an innocent life. "Do you think that this will have a negative effect on the 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted, or do you not care about them?' I care about children, which is why I am pro life. Pro abortionists will say they care about children, but if they truly cared, they wouldn't be pro abortion. Abortion is terminating a life before it has a chance. And most abortions are performed out of convenience for the mother, not health reasons or rape. http://abort73.com... "Do you know how traumatic it is to live a life where you know you weren't wanted? How do you think that is going to turn out?" A lot less traumatic than being ripped apart while still alive. But then again, you believe the child in the womb isn't even alive. It has been proven that a child in the womb CAN feel pain. http://www.mccl.org... http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com... And abortions performed for selfish reasons is worse than because of rape and health.
Abortion

To claim that a fetus in the first trimester can survive long term, or even short term without its mother body and live a healthy life is a blatant lie. Maybe it can survive for a couple of days, but that's hardly a healthy life. Argument debunked. Prostitution should be legal as well. Just because the USA has archaic laws regarding prostitution doesn't mean we should also have archaic laws regarding abortion. We aren't arguing what the laws are; we are arguing what they should be. If we were, then you'd lose the abortion debate since it's legal. Argument debunked. I never claimed a child in the womb was less important than a kidney. That shows a lack of reading comprehension. I claimed that a woman is not obligated to use her body to save anyone's life, whether it be her fetus or to give someone else a kidney. Argument debunked. I never claimed a fetus wasn't important; I merely claimed that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body was MORE important. Argument debunked. Now, have you considered the cost of not letting anyone have an abortion? There are already 100 THOUSAND orphans in the USA, and that is with LEGAL abortion. https://showhope.org... If abortion were illegal, that number could easily be 1 million. Here are some questions for you: Who is going to take care of those children? Who is going to pay for it? Do you think that this will have a negative effect on the 100 thousand children waiting to be adopted, or do you not care about them? Do you know how traumatic it is to live a life where you know you weren't wanted? How do you think that is going to turn out? What about the mother who was forced to have a baby she didn't want? Did you ever consider the consequences of that?
Abortion

I will make this brief, since I hadn't realized after going into a lengthy response, that there was a 2,000 word limit on each round of debate. Pro would like us to believe that abortion is not killing innocent life. I say that it is. A child has been known and documented to survive with extra care outside the womb as early as a couple months, which is in the first trimester. The child can live a full and healthy life after initial treatment for several months afterward. Pro would also like us to believe that a woman has control of her own body. This is also not entirely true. If a woman is caught prostituting, she will be arrested and fined, depending on the state or the country she resides in. She does not have control of her own body in other cases. Pro would like to have us believe that a child in the womb is no more important than a kidney or some other organ in our body. Pro compares a human life to a disposable organ, many of which we can live a long and healthy life without. Pro would also like us to believe that something with brain activity is nothing more than a bunch of cells with no reason to live if the woman decides not to keep them. Brain activity, along with our nervous system, allows us to feel pain. Pro would like us to believe that abortion is just us removing cells from a woman's body. If pro wants to believe that a fetus controls someone else's body, that's their business. However, it does not control another person's body...it is attached to a woman's body and grows inside until mature enough to leave. It has been proven that a child in the womb can feel pain by its reaction when tested. Pain is the body's way of telling us that what we're doing to it or what is being done to it, is harmful. That fact right there should be proof that a child in the womb is NOT a random collection of lifeless cells that can be removed forcibly.