BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pre-nuptial agreements constitutes a serious chance of abuse

One of the pre-nuptial agreements main problems is that they are often signed with intentions that differ from the original intention of ensuring one's personal assets and instead seek to obtain a considerable economical benefit by taking part on the belongings of the other. This argument deals with that possibility. Our first point regarding the problem is that most of the times pre-nuptial agreements are signed under pressure or some kind of external influence, this as mentioned before is disguised constantly by temporal affectionateness, being this last one a powerful manipulative tool. Under the mentioned status, people is more likely to take imprudent decisions not considering the consequences that they might bring in a future time. For being concrete, the emotional value that some people assign to the agreement is the important factor for including not so clear and favorable conditions in the contract.[[http://family-law.lawyers.com/A-Study-About-Prenuptial-Agreements.html]] Our second point states that economical differences between social classes constitutes a barrier for a fair treatment when after getting involved as couple, they decide to divorce and share their properties basing on an agreement previously existing. This may lead into two different cases which are both equally unfair, the first one being the fact that the richer person will always be in a more comfortable position of negotiating and thus being the one which in most of the times establish the bases of the pre-nuptial agreement which are commonly harmful to the other person. The second possibility is the opposite one, in which the poorer person tries to get his or her hands into the fortune and goods of the other, serving from the pre-nuptial agreement which as for probably any of the reasons that we mentioned before may have been arranged to benefit only him or her. It is by this means that pre-nuptial agreements turns from being beneficial documents into risky treaties which prove to be influenced at most by the personal interests of only one of the involved.
Rebuttal to the rebuttal of the point ''Pre-nuptial agreements increase security''

We don't think that the proposition sees the full merit of our argument, when they simply state that the fact that pre-nups can actually improve the quality of a marriage has nothing to do with the debate. This improvement in quality of the marriage comes from the fact that people have the liberty to tailor their marriage and the end of their marriage to something that they desire. Why should something that brings great benefits to somebody who enters a marriage (also our constructive point ''Why not recognizing pre-nuptial agreements actively harms marriages?'') not be recognized by the State, just because in very limited isolated cases people make mistakes and fall victim to abuse? Through out this debate we have said that the better solution would be to limit opportunities of abuse through effective legal oversight and advicing. In response to their three points we say (in the correct order): 1. They're making the mistake that divorce law only matters to couples getting divorced. We've shown benefits to a nascent marriage that can flow from the adoption of certain types of pre-nup (for example, when a young beautiful woman marries an old rich man for love). These benefits only flow if the pre-nup is believed to be actionable, and the pre-nup is only believed to be actionable if it is seen to be actioned in existing divorce cases. Divorce cases can provide stability to existing marriages by demonstrating the actionability of pre-nups by their own example. 2. On what basis should the law be designed if not the minimisation of harm? The action of divorce is something that takes place between the two individuals married, so we would argue that the minimisation of harm, both financial and psychological is a consideration that is anything but irrelevant in the framing of divorce law. 3. Here the intervention is of an even better kind. The conflicting parties are over-ruled by the decision that they themselves judged to be fair when in a calm, pre-conflict state. They cannot blame unfair divorce law on the government, the standards on which the divorce are judged are their own, and therefore will carry greater legitimacy than the arbitrary decisions of a far-removed State (and laws framed by some bureaucrats).
Pre-nuptial agreements increase security

As we've previously stated, the claims of the opposition have no direct relation with the current motion, this is why we would like to focus our critique on the irrelevance of the argument for the debate rather than discussing about its unsustainability, which can be noticed at simple view. First of all we would like to remember that the motion is:"Pre-nuptial agreements should not be recognized in divorce courts.", even if pre-nuptial agreements assured stability in a relationship, there would be no nexus between these two. Our reasons are as follow: · The fact of being on divorce process is a clear indicator of having an unstable relationship. · This motion deals with the legal basis of pre-nups, not with the psychological traumas of each individual. · It is the distrust and lack of agreements between the couple which requires the intervention of the court for making a fair distribution of the assets. We would like to clarify that our extension in this rebuttal answers to the interest of determining an applicable criteria for the rest of the opposition statements, given that all of them tend to follow a similar structure in which the most important thing is not precisely to prove the utility of pre-nups for courts during divorcement processes.
Banning pre-nuptial agreements actively harms some marriages.

The alternative to pre-nuptial agreements is State imposition. This point is about how this imposition takes away measures that help people stabilize their marriage and to define what is important to them in a marriage. Consider the example of an old rich man wanting to marry a young very attractive woman. Obviously there is a societal perception, particularly a perception among the old man’s family, that she’s a gold digger. But actually it is a case of love. The young woman hates the idea of being ostracized by her family, by her friends and by the community. If pre-nups are actionable she can offer a pre-nup in order to provide proof to the people around that her interest in the marriage are pure. If pre-nups are not recognized by divorce courts, she faces a painful dilemma of either marrying the man she loves and being ostracized by the community or not marrying him at all. This is just one example of how pre-nups are necessary to make a marriage work and for two people to be happy. We think that in general this is what proper pre-nuptials do : they make people happy. Not recognizing them is thus an active harm to some people's marriages. In this example, if the young woman decides to marry the wealthy old man, their marriage could be split apart by the resentment of the old man's family and maybe by the doubt gnawing at the old man's heart, that she really is a gold digger. Pre-nups improve society by protecting marriage. In this example gold digging is an active harm to society, because through it some can gain financially from the State based legal system and that degrades the purity of marriage. When the purity of marriage is degraded in people's view people start fearing getting married, because they might end up in some sort of a mess. If they are allowed to counter the risk of for example gold digging through pre-nuptial agreements, then the purity of marriage for is restored. This means that people can have happy unions, which in the case of State based terms they either wouldn't have entered or would have entered and ended up unhappy. This is why not recognizing pre-nups as valid in divorce courts is an active harm : people are forced into something that makes them unhappy, even though there is a perfectly good alternative in the form of pre-nups.
The Sunset provision

The proposition have mentioned several classes of situation in which pre-nuptial agreements can be considered detrimental. We have shown that these circumstances can be specifically targetted and avoided by use of an effective legislative framework. Here, the use of Sunset provisions allow a legal system to maintain individual rights to enter into pre-nuptial agreements while still preventing detriments that arise from rapidly changing circumstances. In other words, we are demonstrating that it is entirely possible to limit the occurrence of harmful situations that may result as a rise of the improper use of pre-nuptial agreements without restricting the freedom of the majority to enter into them and make use of the benefits and flexibility that they provide a marriage. The logical conclusion that since certain objectively harmful forms of pre-nups aren't upheld in courts, all pre-nups shouldn't be upheld simply doesn't follow. Pre-nups incorporate protection against exploitation and duress [[Can Prenuptial Agreements Be Contested? http://www.mamashealth.com/wedding/prenup/contest.asp%5D%5D . So there's more to pre-nups than they demonstrate in their examples. Mostly people consider themselves to be better off when entering a pre-nup, why would they consent to it otherwise?
Pre-nuptial agreements increase security

When people are allowed to enter into pre-nups they can ensure themselves against things that they fear. For example, when the richer person enters into the marriage with the knowledge that his/her wealth is protected, the marriage will be better off because it will be clear that the other person is not marrying for money. As some legal frameworks necessitate sharing wealth 50/50, this could mean that assets will have to be sold, so that it’s worth can be divided equally. This will create a problem when some of those assets are inherited and have, therefore, sentimental value. This heightened sense of security will benefit both parties, as they can be much more confident with the marriage and not be suspicious of one another. "Making a prenup may actually strengthen your relationship. While people often imagine that negotiating a prenup leads to conflict, communicating about money matters can actually improve the quality of your relationship and support good communication in your marriage." [[http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-29909.html;jsessionid=02F347E02190A604D68F8CF7A6EDDBD4.jvm1]]
Prenuptial agreements should not be recognized in divorce courts

This House Believes Prenuptial agreements should not be recognized in divorce courts. Prenuptial Agreements are a contract that the couples sign before marriage and abide for both of them in case they divorce, contemplating distribution of assets, as they can limit and decide upon alimony of the couple and other decisions. Prenuptial agreements are only valid if they are validated before marriage. They can decide upon (including eliminate) your rights on probate homestead, administration of the spouse's estate, wills and other possible determinations. However, child custody cannot be regulated by prenuptial agreements, neither visitation rights and child support and this decisions. They are to be taken by the court's decisions during a divorce. [[http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/divorce/family-law/prenuptial/index.html]] Maybe the fact that the children are the most important part of a marriage and so, their future cannot be decided by agreements taken by people that are under influence of strong feelings (subjectivity) but by judges' criteria that are far more objective than a contract that is written"to never happen" the reason why they cannot be contemplated in prenuptial agreements? Surely it is the case. And the case we will prove you during this debate is the fact that prenuptial agreements are not trustworthy contracts; are driven my emotions rather than reason, remain under unpredictability and unfairness, thus the whole decisions of a divorce should be taken by the court's judges during a divorce process, ignoring any agreement taken by prenuptial agreements.
The State imposed system is not objectively right for everybody

We think that the proposition thus far has gotten away with simply claiming that pre-nups have a terrible risk of harm accruing to individuals who decide to enter them and that along with the fact that these people ''clearly'' aren't thinking rationally and don't really know what's right for them when they sign the agreement, should be the reason for not recognizing them in divorce courts. We want to place a burden on them in this point. We think they have to prove to us that the State based system is a better mechanism and knows what is objectively better for the individual. We have already stated that there are some terms that could in theory be entered into pre-nups that can be seen to be objectively wrong, and in these cases we do not allow their inclusion in pre-nuptial agreements, e.g. the infliction of harm. The proposition's burden is to show that property division systems other than that imposed by the State are objectively worse for all people, or that people are simply incapable of making a decision. We have already discussed the second, and we think that the proposition have just as difficult a job in proving the first. Consider first assets before marriage. Surely there is no objective basis for suggesting that these be split evenly, given that only one member of the union had a hand in their acquisition. But even consider the division of assets during the marriage. It is not objectively the case that assets should always be split 50/50. Not all members carry the same work ethic, not all have the same talent, and just as it would be unfair for one spouse to be entitled to assets that they had no share in acquiring, so would it be equally unfair for a partner to be entitled to an unqualified right to earnings that arose as a result of education and talents that were built up entirely before the marriage, in other words, talents that this partner also had no hand in creating. If the State system is not objectively right for all people in all cases, then pre-nuptial agreements should be allowed so that people can agree themselves what is right in their situation.
The Sunset provision

As a rebuttal to the first two replies set by the opposition side, we first have to call attention on certain specific details. Firstly, we want to recall a statement from the opposition thta caught our attention: "Concerning children...most pre-nups are drafted in a way so as to take the birth of children into account... the pre-nup can be altered accordingly or may simply expire with a "Sunset provision": in Maine, the agreement will automatically lapse after the birth of a child, unless the parties renew the agreement." This means that children (including their custody and visitng rights) may be taken into consideration in prenups. However, even though those aspects are written there, it is only on the divorce courts that the decisions are made, and this by a judicial decision [[http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/divorce/family-law/prenuptial/index.html]]. Now, the fact that the opposition cited the "Sunset provisions" (read voiding an agreement) as positive is doing nothing else but giving us the reason that discarding prenuptial agreements in the courts is an option since the conditions can change (like the birth of a children) and so, prenups can turn out to be unuseful and unfair, that's why the "Sunset provision" is contemplated. The fact that that possibility exists can only open the doors to always be used, as it is automatically done in Maine, but here we are standing for the case of permanently voiding the prenuptial agreements, and are standing still.
Marriage vs an informal partnership

This is a point that lacks structure and an objective. What we can understand is that the opposition assumes that informal marriages, also called common law marriages, (what we understand to what they call "informal partnerships") are inconvenient; not having prenuptial agreements encourages having informal marriages and so, voiding prenuptial agreements is inconvenient. Now, this debate is not wheter informal marriages are convenient or inconvenient since here in the proposition side we do not advocate either for civil marriages or informal marriages but just for the fact that when there is a divorce, prenuptial agreements should not be taken into consideration so the opposition should be as objective and not judge informal marrriages. As to that informal marriages do not have divorces and offer little legal protection, that is not totally even true since there are divorces and so, they have a legal status and are protected by law in some places [[http://nofaultdiv.com/texas_commonlaw.html]]. That supposition by the opposition was strange since even in the case that you do not have a common law marriage, you can still demand a aprtner as you could demand anyone else.
Prenuptial agreements are either too lovely or not as lovely as they appear

The opposition is arguing that for the loving couple pre-nuptial agreements are effectively random pieces of paper that have no value to them because they will probably never be used. That is untrue. We have already shown you in the previous argument that these agreements are hugely important. If people would truly only care about love and never think about the future, they would just sign the agreement but that is not true: in reality these agreements are carefully drafted over extended periods of time with attorneys and legal help, which means that these agreements are not created simple-mindedly. Furthermore, attorneys obviously will point out problematic areas of the agreement: if for example one party says "if we divorce, the other party may take everything I own" then clearly the attorney will suggest that the party, that is making such a statement is not very wise. The same also works in less dramatic cases. In the second case, where pre-nuptial agreements are being used to cheat other people out of their assets, we find, that the other party is also protected firstly and mostly by their own attorney, who will point out the fact that his or her client is being treated unfairly.
Rebuttal to the rebuttal of the point ''Pre-nuptial agreements reduce trauma associated with the divorce''

Again, any emotional damage (if such exists) taken by the fact of making prenuptial agreements invalid would be so minimal that's it's not worth a point. Anyway, we will reply. If we are atlking about "likeliness", then it is far more likely (not only likely but almost certain) that for a couple that is in a process of divorce, there will always be disagreements or fight over certain assets, since not everything can be contemplated in prenuptial agreements and the damage is caused by watching the parents fight over something, but the time that it happens at the courts is minimal! A divorce is a last resource that is taken when both (or at least one) of the sides have reached a boiling point and they have already passed through the process of disagreements and fights over very different situations. It is not to see parents on a court trial what makes a child have a trauma over divorce but the build-up to that divorce[[http://www.advancingwomen.com/divorce/40748.php]], that may include violence and harassment. Thus, it is this fact and not a series of suppositions that determine not recognizing prenuptial agreements have no effect at all in a psychological trauma for chilren. Now, talking about being comfortable with a mistake that you've made and that has cost you...Doesn't that turn into regret and regret is a type of trauma? Since all of the divorces are unchained by a series of problems, then there are no "happy divorces" and so, there will always be at least one side that is disappointed/angry/regretful (if not for both). When you are chained by a prenuptial agreement, you are under obligation to fulfill your past actions and if now it is a mistake, you will not feel "comfortable because it was your choice" but rather regretful, and regretting causes depression and if we want to go far, depression is a main reason for suicide [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide]] ...Now where is the harm? It's on this grounds that we also prove that judicial decisions are less likely to produce trauma and depression and that prenuptial agreements (which are not made with a clear head, as we have explained in our first points) are a real and possible way of having a trauma.
Response to Proposition's Counterargument against Effects on Economy

We agree it is a pity when one goes bankrupt. Unfortunately, the economy has upswings and downturns. It is important in the downturn, when the money is scarce, we spend it efficiently. Recessions kill inefficient business and if a small grocery store goes bankrupt, it means it was not good enough and others are better at providing food. The owner initially loses, because he has to look for a new occupation, but he would find one he’s better at. In downturns people are more careful at spending their income, so they favour cheaper shops. Laws of supply and demand work, but in terms of industries, not a particular retailer. The demand for bread from a particular retailer goes up, but not the demand for bread in general. If one retailer sets his prices high, we purchase from others. If all of them raise prices, a new player comes in and sells the same for less. The competition is open and anybody can enter the contract. Laws of supply and demand and competition imply there are no abnormal profits and too high prices. It doesn’t matter if it’s the government or individuals who spend money on bread. The bread is purchased, it has been produced, adds to the GDP, the money is in the economy. Money is created not by a transaction and its type, but when goods are produced. Besides, big companies use the money to expand and hire workers. Money is still spent and “double benefit” made. Abuse of the system is still there. Failing a job interview purposely is easy and hard to prove, yet technically going to an interview is looking for job, regardless of performance. According to newest available source from Canada 10% of unemployed people there are chronically unemployed and account for 30% of accumulated unemployment (when calculated in days) [1]. We also need to keep the recession in mind here. Hardworking people will not suffer much anyway, because they will get a job fast. Also they usually have their own savings to spend. [1] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-