BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
driving age should be 21 nationally

Although I am not sure what you mean by "what structure you intend to take with this debate," I will respond to your statement that dynamic legislation tailored to regions is preferable to a national driving age of 21. First, I would point out that what is now in place in the USA a confusing mix of hodgepodge laws and regulations which actually has 7 states allowing 14 year old kids to drive, while others not until they are 17 (granted, rural farming states need laws allowing youth to drive farming, small construction equipment, etc., however, this sort of vehicle operation must be more clearly delineated from everyday transportation vehicles.) Secondly, applying new and dynamic legislation unifying such a confusing mix of laws is not without precedence. Note the uniform drinking age of alcohol instituted in 1984. States need to apply the current GDL (Graduated Driver's License) system to encompass a higher age of drivers. Additionally. the benefits of successfully incorporating a system which more carefully regulates drivers over 18 would have enormous social and financial benefits: 1) Statistic illustrating the disproportionate culpability of younger drivers in the 14-21 year old age group in fatal accidents is over whelming. "When we look at the research, raising the driving age saves lives," says Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety. 2) Using the GDL system to the age of 21 would allow younger inexperienced drivers the chance to complete a longer formal training period before handing over the keys of 2-ton, 100mph vehicle to a 14 year old driver. Currently, California requires only 6 hours of on-the-road driver's education. 3) The saving seen would be epic. Conservatively,over 30,000 lives yearly would potentially be saved. Traffic congestion, gasoline consumption, and air pollution would likely see dramatic reductions. Lastly, such a uniform vehicle policy would make the job of law enforcement officials easier and safer in ways too numerous to list at this. Would teens hate? Sure. Would it inconvenience youth and parents? Undoubtedly. But the impact and benefits would be such a net gain that those inconveniences would fade from public consciousness quite quickly.
The Ancient Hebrews Worshipped an Imaginery Volcano God

I suppose since this is Pro's theory, he/she/it ought to have the burden of proof. Since this round wasn't specifically designated for acceptance, I will make a few opening comments.While I am sure that it is possible to construe the ancient Hebrews as worshipping volcanic activity, there will have to be enough evidence in favor of the preposition that it is by far more likely than not to be true. Additionally, if any of this evidence is to be taken from the Tanakh or the Pentateuch, we must view the writings as a whole. For example, if these random two verses which I just made up can be found:'The LORD is truly mighty; he quakes the earth and sends flames upon the enemies of Israel''The LORD is the shepherd of his people, Israel'It would be a grave error and anathema to say 'We can clearly see from the first verse that he's a volcano, and the second verse is just them anthropomorphizing the volcano.', seeing as there's no evidence for preferring that over the converse ('We can clearly see from the second verse that he's a shepherd, and the first verse is just volcanizing the shepherd'). For this reason, I expect my opponent to provide solid reasoning that shows beyond reasonable doubt that the ancient Hebrews worshipped a volcano, not merely some speculation on volcanic characteristics attributed to YHWH.Since at this current time, I am unsure what arguments my opponent intends to raise, I will leave it at this for now. To my opponent.
The Ancient Hebrews Worshipped an Imaginery Volcano God

The ancient Hebrews, due to ignorance of natural phenomena, worshipped volcanic activity, possibly originating in Mesopotamia. The Exodus from Egypt was facilitated by the volcanic fallout of the Santorini volcanic eruption, which occured north of Egypt in tne Mediterranean Sea. The ten plagues can all be attributed to the after effects of a massive eruption possibly leading to further smaller eruptions along rift zones. Mount Sinai. The ancient Hebrews moved on to more pleasant land, leaving their 'living god' behind, but keeping him in spirit and some of the volcanic terminology intact.
Justin Bieber is a better person than what you make him to be.

Apologizing doesn"t excuse bad behavior. If anything celebrities are more likely to be fined because they can afford good lawyers to avoid legal punishment. If anyone else did the things JB has done they would also be a bad person. He just "made bad decisions" is not a valid excuse. Decisions like peeing in a restaurant mop bucket while saying f*** Bill Clinton, and egging his neighbor"s house, aren"t just not so good decisions made off of not so good judgment. Those are bad things that normal good people don"t even consider doing.
Justin Bieber is a better person than what you make him to be.

Okay first... Justin apologized about what he did when he peed in mop bucket and said f**** Bill Clinton http://www.cbsnews.com... And about that "racist joke" Nobody really found it offending. And he also had something to say about that too. https://mobile.twitter.com... everything he does he gets fined for it. But if another person was doing some of the stuff he's doing ( non celebrity) they wouldn't get fined.. people just treat him like that because they want to because he's Justin Bieber, not because what he's doing is bad it's just because who he is. He knows he makes bad choices and he tries to fix them...And Justin isn't a douche bag nor a bad influence...he "makes bad decisions" but not a bad role model , influence. If you ask me this isn't something a douche bag would do. (http://m.youtube.com...) (http://m.youtube.com...) (http://m.youtube.com...) Justin spit no where near his fans....Justin would never do that he gives his fans so much love http://www.nydailynews.com... http://popcrush.com...
Justin Bieber is a better person than what you make him to be.

Justin Bieber spits on fans When Justin Bieber Met the Prime Minister of Canada, He Wore This On this quiz show, people were unable to determine if quotes came from Justin Bieber or Angelica Pickles, the spoiled 3 year old brat from Rugrats, because the types of things they both say are so similar. So Justin Bieber is the equivalent of a 3 year old brat. JB sang racist song about being in the kkk and killing n***** at the age of 14 JB egged his neighbor"s house http://www.nydailynews.com... JB peed in a restaurant mop bucket JB illegally brought his pet monkey to Germany, then left his monkey there, and got an 11,000 dollar fine from Germany he has still not paid. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... All these things in addition to this source: http://www.people.com... that my opponent cited, are enough reasons to hate Justin Bieber. And what is so bad is that there are so many Beliebers despite him being a complete douchebag.
Justin Bieber is a better person than what you make him to be.

What I don't understand is everyone claims that they hate Justin but don't have a good reason to hate him .He goes through so much.Like that petition to deport him was ridiculous...He's doing what everyone else is doing and I don't see none of them getting threaten and wanted out of the country .Everyone treats him so wrong i understand why most of you think he's full of himself, he wants to be treated like a real person but he doesn't want the consequences other people have. But still. He goes through so many death threats, people calling him gay, a lesbian, and constantly telling him he has no talent. You can't expect him to hear those things on a daily and assume him not to react. Everyone keeps telling him how much of a punk he is and that he doesn't fight his on battles. But then when he actually defends himself, "He's a bad influence". Which one do you want him to be?? a bad influence or a Punk because ha can't be a nice bad boy. It's like nobody even cares about the good people do anymore. Justin is in so many charities and donates so much money.... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com... ) But nobody sees the good he does You only see this (http://www.people.com...) And it's so stupid. I don't care what anyone does he doesn't deserve this hate..Yep immma belieber but long time ago i wasn't and i still never treated him the way others do.
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States

How can you legislate morality? Morals are someone's beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. Morals are opinions. Yes, when it comes to something like murder, which can be viewed as an issue of morality, there are laws against it, but the difference is that murder hurts someone other than the person committing the act. Premarital sex is an issue of morality, but there aren't laws against it. There are laws against statutory rape and there is an age of consent, but again, those laws are to protect people from being hurt. As I've said before, polygamy doesn't hurt anyone. Where is your evidence of polygamous marriages specifically not working? Unfortunately, there isn't much evidence that any type of marriage is very successful with such high divorce rates in the United States. It seems as though many arguments you've made against polygamy are situations that are anything but unique to polygamy. A traditional family setting can result in divorce, abuse and other less than desirable circumstances.
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States

Simply put, the government recognizes marriage as little more than an aggressive two-party contract, giving the interested parties certain tax reliefs and social benefits, but also requiring a government interest in the property and finances of the couple (so that the government has say over said property in case of, e.g., divorce). Preventing persons based on their collective sex to enter into the contract seems unfairly discriminatory too people, and as such I strongly believe in federal and state recognition of same-sex marriage. But preventing persons to enter into multiple contracts or into an entirely different kind of contract isn't discriminatory within the contract at all -- it is an entirely different kind of contract to which the government has chosen not to give benefits. Only the most wealthy man can afford it, but many others won't realize it and will take on too many wives and children and then expect the government to take care of them. The FLDS polygamous Mormon sect took in millions in government money to keep going. In all honesty I could care less about what the religious or cultural issues are. But when it comes to the legalization something, morality must be taken into some account. When it comes to polygamy, on the moral side statistically there is little evidence that polygamous marriages are successful. Often the polygamized party is forced into an internal caste system where in some cases the favored wife is given the majority of the income, forcing other wives to essentially beg for the money. The original Husband usually gives little care to his offspring and children, as with many cases of polygamy in which the know little of their father other than someone to be feared. In general, even if it is not the main point, morality is something that cannot be avoided.
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States

"Not that the mechanisms could not be developed otherwise, but the default is so engrained it would take a lot of doing to change things" Yes, the systems could be adjusted to fit polygamous marriages as well as monogamous, and yes, it would take a good deal of work but I think it's necessary. It took a lot of time, effort, and adjustment during the Civil Rights Movement to get blacks and other minorities the rights they deserved, but it was something that had to be done in order to protect everyone's rights. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the United States Constitution does not give anyone an actual right to marry. Different court cases have come to different conclusions about different aspects and types of marriage, but I believe that the right to marry goes hand in hand with the pursuit of happiness idea in the Declaration of Independence. Everyone deserves to be able to marry the person they love and want to commit to, as long as it doesn't harm others. (For example, an incestuous marriage would potentially harm a child born from that marriage [1]). "How do we know it is not a multiple marriage just to reap the benefits?" The truth is we won't know. But this isn't unique to polygamy; marriage fraud happens all the time for an assortment of reasons. "It would leave many other women and men would essentially be left with no hope of finding a potential mate." Let's say Ben is a single man who wants a monogamous marriage, and Lucy is a woman who is also single but wants a polygamous marriage. Ben and Lucy get along really well, but they want different types of relationships, so Lucy isn't going to want to marry Ben anyway. Worrying about people finding mates is pointless because people who want to be polygamists are still going to want to be polygamists whether it is legal or not. It's similar to gay marriage: a lesbian is just not going to want to marry a man, even though gay marriage isn't legal either. "Polygamy rendered polygamous men unfit for democracy by accustoming them to habits of command and obedience." Do you have proof that polygamy causes men to become accustomed to the habits of command and obedience? Regardless, this isn't something that is unique to polygamy. Every marriage, polygamous or monogamous, and every person, polygamist or monogamous, is different, so generalizing in this way doesn't accurately represent polygamy. My argument is not about whether polygamy is right or wrong, it is whether it should be legalized or not. It should be legalized because marriage is a way that people pursue their happiness. It's very important for government to maintain a balance between the majority's rule and the minority's rights. In the case of polygamy, this hasn't been done. The majority of Americans would not choose to be polygamous, but a minority would, and should be able to legally marry. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States

I find that polygamy is more of an economic and social issue, and rather less than a moral one ,Though morality is of course an important issue. For example much of our societal benefits, both governmental and private, revolve around two spouses ex. Tax deductions, child support and custody, employee benefits etc. Denial of these benefits to those willing to take on the social constraints of marriage is one of the strongest arguments in favor of gay marriage. If this were now expanded to polygamy, things would be turned on their head. Not that the mechanisms could not be developed otherwise, but the default is so engrained it would take a lot of doing to change things. Consider headaches with verifying that a domestic partner is really a domestic partner for those types of benefits. Now, multiply that to 3 spouses; how do we know it is not a multiple marriage just to reap the benefits? Do we now expand domestic partner benefits to multi-non-spouse households? Socially speaking the ratio of men and women are roughly equal, When a one man/woman decides to acquire more spouses. It would leave many other women and men would essentially be left with no hope of finding a potential mate. Another rebuttal was not that it was immoral per se, Rather polygamy rendered polygamous men unfit for democracy by accustoming them to habits of command and obedience. The a polygamous male would essentially be a kind of petty tyrant who lacked the cultural prerequisites for democratic self-government. This is why anti-polygamy legislation was also tied up with the refusal to admit Utah as a state, the disenfranchisement of polygamists (and in some jurisdictions all Mormons, monogamous or other wise), etc.
Polygamy should be legalized in the United States

Polygamy: having more than one spouse at a time, whether it be a man with multiple wives or a woman with multiple husbands. Background information: Many people falsely believe the Mormon church advocates polygamy. The church outlawed polygamy in 1890. Any member of the Mormon church who gets caught practicing polygamy will be excommunicated. There are religions that share almost identical beliefs with the Mormon church that do practice polygamy, but Mormons are very adamant about not being associated with them. Please just keep this in mind. I think that polygamy should be legalized, but with regulations. Regulations would include requiring the parties of the marriage to be consenting adults. Many people associate polygamy with older men marrying girls who are minors and basically committing statutory rape. As stated above, the parties would have to be consenting adults, not an adult and a minor. However, keep in mind that polygamy and statutory rape are not directly related. You can't judge polygamy as a whole based on the poor choices of a few polygamist groups. Also, statutory rape can occur in a standard nuclear family situation just as easily as it can in a polygamist family situation. Polygamy in and of itself does not harm anyone. Yes, statutory rape and cult-like behavior that can be found with some cases of polygamy can be harmful, especially to children, but those are two completely different issues. A consenting man being married to two consenting women and having children who are not abused in any way does not infringe anyone's rights. While I personally would not choose to lead a polygamist lifestyle, I don't see how the government or any person has the right to tell someone who does want to practice polygamy that they can't. Thank you to whoever accepts this debate :)
Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferati

Thank you for your response. Your argument that my statement does not pertain to the discussed topic is invalid. The topic under discussion is stated in your opening statement in a manner such that the debate would regard the question of justifiability in the case of unilateral action by the United states in order to prevent nuclear proliferation. Therefore, since it does not specifically address the circumstances of the unilateral action, from an academic standpoint, it does not preclude the scenario where the issue of multilateral action has failed to prevent proliferation. If this is what you intended you should have worded the issue as "Is unilateral action by the United States to prevent nuclear proliferation justifiable in all circumstances?" Or you would otherwise have to specifically note in your statement that the discussion would be about multilateral vs unilateral action. Your rebuttal that there is no evidence that the UN will reach disagreements, especially on issues such as military intervention is simply ludicrous. I will cite the failures of multilateral efforts during the Bangladesh Liberation war, the Arab-Israeli conflict, action against North Korean Nuclear programs, etc.. The list goes on and on. This is why I say that while multilateral efforts are extremely effective in certain circumstances, they are almost always ineffective when there are too many conflicting interests at play. But I digress, this debate is not about the effectiveness of multilateral action versus unilateral action, this debate is about the justifiability of American unilateral action to prevent nuclear proliferation. You seem to only address the effective measures of multilateral cooperation but you fail to address the indefensibility of unilateral action when nuclear proliferation by a country, especially those in volatile regions such as the middle east, is undisputed. How can you possibly request me to give specific evidence on a philosophical and primarily hypothetical topic, this is simply a ridiculous request. I challenge you to refute my statement that unilateral action is justified to prevent the possibility of a nuclear arms race and to prevent future nuclear weapons use.
Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferati

Thank you for a timely responseI will be going over my opponent's case. First, my opponents say that the US is justified to use unilateral force, when all multilateral actions do not work. However, this is not the topic. The topic is not Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation if multilateral action is not viable. It is Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation. Therefore, my opponent's entire case can be disregarded. However, if we continue to play out my opponent's plan, then all I have to show is ONE example of where multilateralism can work, and we should win this debate. Probably to my opponent's discontent, our whole first argument is about using multilateralism, and how it works better than unilateralism. Now, my opponent whole case essentially revolves around this argument, so I will refute their case in piecesFirst, they say that UN is not going to work because of conflicting interests. However, there are other alliances that don't have to be with the UN that are multilateral. Multilateral action can occur outside of the United Nations – For instance, a joint US-Israeli strike against Iran. Council on Foreign Relations reports that “Israel and the United States have been closely collaborating on any number of fronts, especially in the area of intel sharing". They also have no evidence that UN will reach a disagreament and get nothing done, therefore, you can disregard that completely. Second they talk about how if there is irrefutable evidence that WMDs exist, then unilateral military force can be used. However, this is AGAINST THE TOPIC'S BOUNDARIES. My opponent has the provide this IRREFUTABLE proof if they want to win this debate.
Donald Trump Is Racist and Is Greedy!

Alright here are your problems. 1. No definitions 2. No sources 3. Not enough rounds 4. Not enough characters 5. You can"t fix these problems Anyways the question is Donald Trump racist and greedy? You have nothing to prove he is racist or greedy except a rant you made. First let"s define racism and greed. Racism: Racism: a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. . http://dictionary.reference.com...... Greed: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power, or food. Let"s see what Trump has to say about this, "I am the least racist person that you have ever met," . http://fox6now.com... you didn"t use sources therefore who"s to believe 1 person over three or more sites of information. Another source, Trump says, "When it comes to racism and racists," Trump said, "I am the least racist person there is. And I think most people that know me would tell you that. I am the least racist. I've had great relationships. " . http://talkingpointsmemo.com... In order to put down your claim that "Donald Trump is racist and Greedy" I would agree with greedy but in order for you to win he would have to be proved both. He is not racist because my sources and I say he is not. Therefore since more sources are on my side I win this debate.
Donald Trump Is Racist and Is Greedy!

Donald Trump does not like Mexicans and says they are all "rapists and theives" He is unethical and plans to deport y'all Muslims. That is unethical as he does not like them. Even rouge group Anonymous has taken a stand about him. Banks refuse to work with him as off his greed. He is controlled by money and uses people and only cares for the one most perfect person is the world Is him. He is racist but says Mexicans love him.