BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lower Drinking Age

Thanks Nickc92! Obviously because of the character limits, I will not be able to explain myself as eloquently as I would like, so If I am a bit vague, please let me know in the comments section prior to your final speech, and I will clarify to the best of my ability. so first, of all, my last speech was strictly to further the establish the stance. I have yet to attack the Pro Case. with this in mind attacking the Pro case will be the primary purpose of the Con in round two, and as time allows I will then defend myself. First, My opponent's only claims that is that people should not be allowed to join the military at eighteen if they are not allowed to drink until the age of twenty-one; however this is a fallacious statement. first, this has nothing to do with an objection to the legal drinking age, but is more an attack on the armed forces. Second, Joining the military is something one does on a moral basis (Which I might add joining the military is completely in the U. S. ) they believe that by joining the military, they are helping their country and defending their way of life. this is a stark difference to drinking alcohol, which one does for personal enjoyment and recreation. when we realize this we have no reason to vote Pro, moving one. My opponent's only attacks on my point one where that we should raise the legal drinking age if the brain is not yet fully developed until 25, I agree with him, this is in support to the Con. also, I will provide evidence in the comments. on my point 2, My opponents agrees with my on adaptation so there is no clash here. as for the military extend my prior arguments. And on point 3, I would like to cross-apply my point two here, a bit which I will further explain in round 3, also, my opponent is right. Alcohol kills the brain cells of all people, so we should indeed raise the legal drinking age to be more than 21!
Lower Drinking Age

Yes, the realm of this debate is within the United States. I would like to start by saying that I do believe that there is obvious logic behind the age limits for different actions that people do on a regular basis. However, i do not see the relevance between the drinking age and the tobacco and driving age. Given the obvious fact that one of the main fears about alcohol is drunk driving, the fact that one can get a license at 16 is not relevant to the argument that the drinking age should be lowered (Reason being; I do not believe that the age should be lowered to less than 18). Nor is the age for use of tobacco. Now, in your first point you stated that "The brain is not fully developed until the ages of between 21 and 25." Assuming that your fact is indeed accurate, it should be common knowledge that everyone's brain develops at different speeds and if this is true, then why is the legal age not 25, when everyone's brain is fully developed? (According to you) In your second point you explained how newly legal adults need time to adapt. I do agree with this to some extent. However, bringing me back to my point about the military, why is it that teenagers of 18 can go directly into the army without any adaptation time? By saying what you said in your second bullet, you are actually helping prove my point by pointing out how the government is contradicting itself. In your third point you stated that "Alcohol kills brain cells and stunts mental development." This has been proven time, and time again, so I will not disagree. At age 18, yes, most go to college, but why is it worse for someone in college to kill brain cells than someone of age 40 in the working world? Depending on the job the 40 year old is doing, it could very well be MORE negative to kill brain cells than the college student.
Lower Drinking Age

Okay, now you see; these are the kind of debates I love doing! And I honestly do believe the side of the Con, so I'm also thankful to my opponent for the pro having Initiated such a debate. So for maximum clarity, I will first present the Con stance and (as I'm assuming we are going to do due to the character limit of 2,000) attack my opponent during my next speech ------- In any society, whether or not one realizes it, they participate in a system of Give and Take; otherwise know as the Social Contract. Under the assumption that the realm of this debate is within the united states (If I'm wrong please correct me) we can look to age limits one many different things to help come to a sensible conclusion. At Sixteen, one can legally drive if they pass a test and meet various standards. At eighteen, one can legally buy and use Tobacco (Interesting that a test isn't required for this) At twenty-one, one can buy and consume Alcohol (Again, why is there no test for this?) And all of there are with perfectly acceptable logic behind them, if there where no logic behind these limitations they would not exist, we would allow people to do as they wish and have a good time about it. so the three reasons I say the drinking age should stay the same are as follows (I can later expand upon them at my opponent' request later) 1. The brain is not fully developed until the ages of between 21 and 25- Accordingly these young adults won't be able to drink responsibly, their having a buzz will prohibit proper self-control 2. Newly legal adults need time to adapt and adjust to living on their own before being allowed such a vice into their lives- This is true universally and can be applied to almost any situation, if all power is give to a person at once, they have no reason to practice self-control 3. Alcohol kills brain cells which stunt mental development- between ages 18-20 and beyond many adults go to college to better themselves, alcohol limits them, and lessens their potential.
Lower Drinking Age

The drinking age is 21, by law; meaning that in order for an average person to go buy a drink he/she has to have ID on them confirming that he/she is of legal age. This law is understandably strict, but also somewhat toying with a person's free abilities. If it is unacceptable for anyone under the age of 21 to buy a beer, how can it be acceptable for people as young as 18 to go off to war and possibly be violently killed defending our country? In my experiences debating this, the rebuttal I always seem to come across is; the reason the age is 21 is because most people younger than that are too irresponsible to handle alcohol and will endanger the lives of others and themselves. So, younger people are allowed to endanger themselves by directly putting themselves on the front lines of combat, firing back and forth with automatic, high velocity killing tools and killing machines, but they cannot buy a drink in a bar for fear that they will hurt themselves or others? If that is the case, then why is the legal age to join the military not 21? It is clear common sense that putting any person of any age in a military combat situation is one of the most dangerous places a person can be in. If a person of the age of 18 is considered responsible enough to hold a weapon and fire it at another man or woman in defense for the United States, then why should that person be denied access to alcohol at a bar?
The Best Way to Shrink Carbon Footprints is a High Carbon Tax with an Average Dividend

The dividend is key to effecting change in individual behavior and in making the tax politically viable. Without the dividend, a person who tries hard to lower his/her footprint but still has to drive 30 miles to work every day would pay inordinately large amounts of taxes. It would cause unemployment in those who must drive. Without the dividend, those people would be put in a dire situation in which the government has essentially taken their job and livelihood.The dividend is compensation for that hit to the wallet. Arguably, though, the incentive created by the dividend is more important. The dividend would create a race to be under the average emissions because it would not only alleviate their tax burden, but also "profit" by having a lower tax bill than the rebate. Corporations must have limits rather than taxes. With a limited number of permits that go to the highest bidder, corporations would essentially be setting voluntary tax rates at the highest level that doesn't harm them. If a corporation is unwilling to pay, say, $1M for a permit for X tons of CO2, it would not be required to. It would just have to fall back on production making the greener companies more profitable in the long run. It also means that super-rich companies that fight for the right to pollute would be more likely to bid higher. Having a limited number of permits also allows for a more controlled amount of carbon emissions. If scientists tell us we have 10 years to get to 10x less than we are at now, the number of permits issued could be set to dwindle at that rate. With a tax instead of a limited permit system, they might still emit CO2 above that rate and make the necessity for reform more frantic.
The Best Way to Shrink Carbon Footprints is a High Carbon Tax with an Average Dividend

I will be focusing on what is the "best" way to shrink the carbon footprint. While the semantic option of saying "kill all humans" would technically be the best way, I will ignore things like that, since they utterly kill the purpose of debate. To prove that something is not the best, I must show something that is better. Since if all I do is argue that my opponent's proposal sucks, but not provide a better alternative, then I have failed to show that it is not the best. I will merely outline my case this round and allow my opponent to begin the debate (since it would be unfair for me to have the first and last word). === Con's Case === While the case I present will not be my ideal proposal, I choose it because it has fewer differences from my opponent's so we can focus more energy and attention on the differences, rather than trying to do a debate about a bunch of differences. - Individual level 1) Same lowering of huge subsidies to oil companies. 2) Institute a carbon tax that is set to increase every year. 3) *KEY DIFFERENCE* there would be no annual dividend back to the people. 4) Anyone with a negative carbon footprint would be given an amount of money equal to what they would pay if it were positive. 5) *KEY DIFFERENCE* income from the individual tax would be split between long term carbon solutions (investments in green energy) and short term carbon solutions (re-forestation, protecting environments, etc). - Corporate level *KEY DIFFERENCE* rather than having the corporate option that my opponent has, they would be on the same as the individual, however with different levels to allow it to make sense for the larger quantity. We can now go into which option would be better at reducing our carbon footprints.
The Best Way to Shrink Carbon Footprints is a High Carbon Tax with an Average Dividend

Firstly, this argument is not whether or not carbon should be limited. For the purposes of this debate, that is a given. An idea that just popped in my head to quickly and economically lower CO2 emissions/footprints: On the individual level: Proposal: first we start lowering the huge subsidies to oil companies. Second we institute a high carbon tax that is set to increase every year. After the first year of the tax, the average tax bill of an individual is given out to every individual (the average dividend). Anyone with a negative carbon footprint would be given an amount of money equal to what they would pay if it were positive. Effects: This would make the people using the least carbon would actually earn money. It would create an arms race towards the lowest CO2 emissions. On the company level: For larger corporations, rather than having a tax, I would issue a limited and dwindling number of carbon permits that are auctioned off to the highest bidder. All the income gained from the tax would be used to subsidize the prices of micro-generation and research into other energies (thorium). Are there any glaring flaws that you see in this idea?
The Best Way to Shrink Carbon Footprints is a High Carbon Tax with an Average Dividend

Since this is the last round, I will only address what was said in my opponent's last round that I have not yet had an opportunity to address. Because of this, I will keep this very short. - Positive reinforcement - First, my opponent presented a link on punishment, but not on positive reinforcement, that can be found here [1]. It clearly says, "positive reinforcement involves the addition of a reinforcing stimulus following a behavior that makes it more likely that the behavior will occur again in the future. " Because the dividend is equal to every single person, it is not a case of positive reinforcement. Please note that I only bring this up in my final round because my opponent does not once mention positive reinforcement in any previous round. As so to not argue old points, I highly recommend to all readers to read through the debate at least twice (thankfully, it is a fairly short debate, so that shouldn't take too long) and whenever there is a quote, make sure it is taken in context and keep an eye open for dropped arguments. I thank my opponent for creating the debate and everyone that has taken the time to read it. Thank you, [1] . http://psychology.about.com...
The Best Way to Shrink Carbon Footprints is a High Carbon Tax with an Average Dividend

The dividend is equal to everyone, but the person using less carbon than average is "rewarded" twice: first in the form of a lower tax bill, second in the form of profit from the dividend. If that person were to use the average amount, he/she would break even. Above average, he/she would pay more than received. Below average, he/she would have MORE than what he/she started with. Without that dividend, it's just a tax like the one on cigarettes. The dividend is an extra incentive by distributing the wealth from the above average polluters to the below average polluters. Even though the dollar amount is the same, I believe giving money for something holds higher power as an incentive than taking money away. It's a classic case of positive reinforcement vs punishment(1). Psychologists have found that the best method for effecting behavioral change is positive reinforcement(2).I didn't say all corporations should be limited by the permits. I said "For larger corporations, rather than having a tax..."I was implying smaller ones would just pay the tax like individuals."However, by taking the tax money and investing in green solutions (both long and short term), it creates jobs..."As Con pointed out, the economy is outside the scope of this debate. Creating jobs is irrelevant. In my scenario, the dividend would allow the market to make green tech more affordable. Demand would increase because those who go beneath carbon average would be coming out on top. I thank my opponent for engaging me on this topic. It has been fun. Con makes some very good objections, and they're something to think about but as it stands, I believe my system would be faster at reducing emissions.1. http://psychology.about.com...2. http://www.allpsych.com...
Cultural Relativism is nonsense.

My claim is that what is right and wrong depends on the person. If all of us made it our life missions to improve the living standards of society we wouldn't have any time to take care of ourselves. Since we have one life to live and we have to experience when things happen to us and not so much when things happen to other people far away it makes the most sense to live lives for our own happiness. Its fine to be social and help others out but this is mainly for our social happiness. But everyone is different and different things makes different people happy so really what are right and wrong choices is subjective and depends on the person.
Cultural Relativism is nonsense.

The modern left argues that due to preferability being subjective (different people prefer different things) there is no metric on which we can objectively measure the preferability of different cultures, and that as such we shouldn't have preference for any particular culture. However, this is untrue, there are universal preferences among all humans, such as avoiding pain, getting wealthy, surviving, and generally improving living standards. These are completely tangible and measurable metrics and we can observe that certain cultural behaviors can further or hinge these universal preferences. As such it makes sense that we should adopt and preserve the cultural behaviors that are best at substantiating these universal preferences while abandoning and discouraging those that aren't.
Word Debate

Refutation of my opponent's argumentMy opponent chose the word, Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. It means, "the fear of long words", and my opponent calls the word ironic as a reason for it being a better word than most. I see this as a cruel word, not an ironic one. It is blatantly making fun of a person's fear. Why should a word that is making fun of people be regarded as "better" than others? His word is never used in regular conversation and is not known to most people. If a word was "better" than most, wouldn't it be used by most people?My word - SEX.I am choosing the word "sex". It means either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions the sum of the structural and functional differences by which the male and female are distinguised, or the phenomena or behavior dependent on these differences. the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another, or its manifestation in life and conduct. coitus genitalia MY ARGUMENTS As you can see, my word has more meanings/definitions than my opponents. It has many more uses. It can describe an act, used as an adjective or noun, etc. My word is used in regular conversation every day and is known to probably every conscious adult. Parents spell this word out in front of their children so as to avoid saying the word aloud, frequently making this word on of the first that a child learns to spell. Sex is needed to continue our species. This makes it a very important word. The father of psychotherapy, Sigmund Freud, felt that sex was a primary driving force behind our personalities. Sex sells, therefore... this word is important in our economies.
Word Debate

This is a debate on who has the better word. You just post a word and then let the people vote on the better word. Rules: 1. the word must be in the dictionary! Here is my word: Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia Definition: Fear of long words.[1] How ironic isn't it? Use in a sentence: Patient: "Doctor I am scared of really long words!" Doctor: "Hmmm, I think you have Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia" Patient: "AHHHHH!!!" [1] = http://phobialist.com...
Paedophile priests should be exposed (not literally, obviously, that's already a big problem)

With thanks to my opponent for taking up this debate, I should like to respond as follows: I appreciate my opponent's point that to launch a full and open investigation into paedophile practices in the Catholic Church would highlight the problem and may serve to further damage the Church's reputation. This may well be the case, but in the long term, it would be worth it. Say, for example, you were looking for a new car. You'd want one that would be fast, efficient, comfortable, attractively designed and many other things but most of all you'd want it to be safe. Now, there are many car manufacturers competing for your business but some of their models have faults. From time to time a design fault comes to light that requires a product recall, even from the car makers with a good reputation. For example, I had to take my Audi back to the garage because they had discovered that there could, potentially, be a problem with the seatbelt pre-tensioners. Audi brought this to my (and the public's) attention voluntarily, even though, in the short term, it may have harmed their reputation for build quality. And now let's say that every day you read about some terrible car accident in the news. One day, it might be a car that ploughed into a bus queue. The next day it was an out of control car that careered into a field full of baby bunny rabbits, kittens, puppies, lambs and cute little ducklings causing mass carnage. The day after a car containing Nelson Mandela, Miss World, the Dalai Lama and Steven Hawkins drove off a cliff and landed, two hundred feet down, on a lifeboat that was busy rescuing a party of stranded orphans. The following day a car failed to stop at a level crossing and derailed a freight train carrying high explosives, plutonium, nerve agents and napalm, causing an explosion that wiped out an entire city, and so on, and on each occasion the car involved was made by the same manufacturer and the fault was always brake failure. Consequently, every day, the manufacturer concerned issued a statement apologising for the problem, but said that, even though their brake pads were made from papier-mï¿½chï¿½ rather than metal, there were thousands of their cars on the road that hadn't suffered any problems so they saw no reason to investigate the matter further. It's the same with the Catholic Church. They know they have a big problem with child-molesting curates (you never hear about that sort of thing from Anglican churches where the clergymen are allowed to get married) but rather than have a full root and branch, thorough and transparent investigation, they apologise every time a new kiddy-fiddling incident comes to light but do nothing to prevent future repetitions of perverted priests abusing their positions of trust to sexually interfere with little boys. If the Pope was an honourable man he would hang his head in shame and resign for failing in his duty to address this endemic, sick and wicked practice amongst his clerics.
Paedophile priests should be exposed (not literally, obviously, that's already a big problem)

Thank you Brian Eggleston for initiating this debate, but, I disagree with you. I, am personally an agnostic and according to your profile, you are an atheist, therefore, I think that more people ought to respect this debate in light of the fact that our opinion is objective, for the most part. I speak namely in virtue of the preservation of Catholicism. If we were to, from your rhetoric, "expose" the few Catholic Priest that have paedophiliac tendencies, we would be in essence, slowly delegitimazing the virtue and importance of Catholicism and colloquially every branch of Catholicism. If we were to in fact my opponent's proposition in the real world, this would lead to a society that sees Catholicism as an immoral institution. At the point in which we are singling out a particular religious group, simply because of a few people with paedophiliac tendency, From the rhetoric that, "there are rotten apples in every bunch", meaning in every institution there are going to be corruption from a few people, though these people ought to receive some level of punishment, exposure is not the way to go. Exposing the priest would not hurt the Priest a such as it would hurt the Catholic community. After, the Priest, Monsignor Alan Placa, a long time friend of Giuliani, was "exposed" for sexually molesting two former students, ultimately it was Giuliani and the rest of the Catholic community that were harmed. The only way the Catholic Church can begin to restore it's reputation from said events is from punishing these paedophiles, not exposing them, this is because exposing them would call for further strikes against Catholic reputation. I also have to say that you presumption that "many Catholic priests are pedophiles" is far from accurate. O would say that this claim needs evidence, but I am pretty sure you can find a few examples in which this occurred, therefore, I'd like to just point out to you that this sort of statement ventures away from any proper discourse. This is a form of degration, in that you are insinuating that Catholicism is bad, you have to take into consideration the feeling associated with religion, this assumption is somewhat uncalled for. I conclude by stating that though pedophilia is wrong, the debate should focus primarily on pedophilia and not exclusively catholicism. __________ Thank you for your time and consideration, - Protagoras of Abdera