BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Joke debate.

Thanks for accepting BlackVoid. Here are my jokes. Redneck__ 1. You think "loading the dishwasher" means getting your wife drunk. 2. You ever cut your grass and found a car. 3. You own a home that is mobile and 5 cars that aren't. 4. You think the stock market has a fence around it. 5. Your stereo speakers used to belong to the Drive-in Theater. 6. Your boat has not left the drive-way in 15 years. 7. You own a homemade fur coat. 8. Chiggers are included on your list of top 5 hygiene concerns. Pearly Gates__ 9. A new York Divorce Lawyer died and arrived at the pearly gates. Saint Peter asks him "What have you done to merit entrance into Heaven?" The Lawyer thought a moment, then said, "A week ago, I gave a quarter to a homeless person on the street." Saint Peter asked Gabriel to check this out in the record, and after a moment Gabriel affirmed that this was true. Saint Peter said, "Well , that's fine, but it's not really quite enough to get you into Heaven." The Lawyer said, "Wait Wait! There's more! Three years ago I also gave a homeless person a quarter." Saint Peter nodded to Gabriel, who after a moment nodded back, affirming this, too, had been verified. Saint Peter then whispered to Gabriel, "Well, what do you suggest we do with this fellow?" Gabriel gave the Lawyer a sidelong glance, then said to Saint Peter, "Let's give him back his 50 cents and tell him to go to Hell." 10. Recently a teacher, a garbage collector, and a lawyer wound up together at the Pearly Gates. St. Peter informed them that in order to get into Heaven, they would each have to answer one question. St. Peter addressed the teacher and asked, "What was the name of the ship that crashed into the iceberg? They just made a movie about it." The teacher answered quickly, "That would be the Titanic." St. Peter let him through the gate. St. Peter turned to the garbage man and, figuring Heaven didn't *really* need all the odors that this guy would bring with him, decided to make the question a little harder: "How many people died on the ship?" Fortunately for him, the trash man had just seen the movie. "1,228," he answered. "That's right! You may enter." St. Peter turned to the lawyer. "Name them." __________ I await a response.
Prosecuting a juvenile as an adult should not be permissible in courts.

I will be defending the position that if someone falls into the legal category of a juvenile, then that person should be prosecuted as such for crimes committed. I am including all crimes in this argument. If someone is considered to be below the age at which he or she is considered to be able to comprehend the ramifications of his or her actions, then he or she should be considered to have shifted to the category of people who are able to comprehend the ramifications of his or her actions simply due to the nature of the actions. This is not my opening argument, this is just me clarifying the position I am defending. Rules: Pro and Con must argue within the context of a system that has definitions for juveniles and minors as exists in the USA. It is not allowed to argue in terms of systems with no such demarcation or systems with a demarcation based on merit rather than age.
Prosecuting a juvenile as an adult should not be permissible in courts.

Con argues for a common sense idea that someone a few days from an arbitrary cutoff for adulthood should count as an adult in the court system. The problem is that this type of reasoning leads to prosecuting babies as adults since it is still arbitrary. X is a few days from being an adult, so prosecute X as an adult. Y is a few days from a few days from being an adult, so prosecute Y as an adult. Z is a few days from a few days from a few days from being an adult, so prosecute Z as an adult. The idea that someone is close enough to an adult just means we have pushed an arbitrary cutoff back a few days to a new cutoff. Then that same reasoning says that if someone is very close to the new arbitrary cutoff, the person should be prosecuted as an adult. This sounds like a slippery slope argument, but it has actually happened. The acceptance of prosecuting juveniles as adults has been used in such a way to where we now have pre teens being charged as adults. A 12 year old and a 13 year old charged as adults. http://abcnews.go.com... Two 12 year old girls charged as adults. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 12 year old boy charged as adult. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 10 year old charged as adult. http://www.cbsnews.com... According to the equal justice initiative, there are at least 10, 000 children housed in adult jails and prisons. Some of them are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they clearly could not have understood the consequences of their actions. http://www.eji.org... I agree that if we had an adjustable system, then charging a 17 year old as an adult could make sense, but being able to arbitrarily adjust the rate as you suggest being able to do leads to the very real consequences I have demonstrated.
Prosecuting a juvenile as an adult should not be permissible in courts.

con says if juveniles are banned from things like voting they should not eb tried as an adult. it should go the other way though, if some kids are mature enough to be tried as an adult, they should be allowed to do things like vote. just because the system doesn't ensure this though doesn't mean we shouldn't try those kids as an adult. the system doesnt have to be consistent. it is in the name of justice and common sense that someone a few days from being an adult might be able to be tried as an adult.
Prosecuting a juvenile as an adult should not be permissible in courts.

In any event, here is my argument. The current system bans people under the age of 18 from participating in many activities. These include smoking, filming pornography, voting, serving in the military, purchasing firearms, etc. This is supposedly because they are considered to lack the cognitive capacity to either understand the potential consequences of these actions or to be trusted with that power. The only time we make exceptions for this is when someone makes a profoundly stupid decision, and this seems to be a result of the blood lust people have with respect to crime. They want someone to pay. This seems to define adult as a person who is profoundly stupid since highly advanced students cannot apply to be called adults and thus vote. If a 12 year old can be charged with murder, it stands to reason that there are 12 year olds who should be eligible to vote, have sex, purchase firearms, etc. This is not, however how our system works. My argument is not that if a system existed where your legal rights and responsibilities were tied to your maturity, then people under 18 should not be prosecuted as adults. That kind of system would make sense and then age would be a non factor. I am arguing that in a system with a set cutoff for adulthood, having a special rule allowing someone to skip ahead to being called an adult because the person displayed a lack of intelligence is not justified.
Prosecuting a juvenile as an adult should not be permissible in courts.

Did you read the rules? "Rules: Pro and Con must argue within the context of a system that has definitions for juveniles and minors as exists in the USA. It is not allowed to argue in terms of systems with no such demarcation or systems with a demarcation based on merit rather than age." I specifically said that this debate is confined to debating a system where there is a cutoff. I also defined round 1 as acceptance only. Please present an argument that fits the debate, not one that is outside the realm of this debate.
Genetic screening/child selection

Figuring out the resolution has been a major problem in this debate. I figured if I proposed a resolution, then Con, the instigator, would probably jump in and counter with a different one. That didn't happen. I said the resolution was "The law should allow genetic testing of unborn babies for the purpose of detecting genetic defects, and to subsequently apply such cures for detected genetic defects as may be available." Con surprised me by agreeing to that resolution, and then later conceded, "Curing and treating is absolutely fine. I have no objections for that." So what is it that Con really wanted to debate? She said, "Where I raise an argument is when screening is done with the intent of aborting the child." Moreover, Con tells us she is not opposed to abortion. So at this point, my next guess is that what Con wanted to debate was, "Women should not choose to abort an unborn baby based upon screening evidence of mental defect." If that is the resolution, then Con's question, "Should we allow geneticists to determine the fate of unborn babies?" is at best misleading. I replied, "No, the fate of unborn babies should be determined solely by parents. Geneticists should be restricted to providing information to parents, and to assisting in providing cures sought by parents." I argued that this was a parental choice abortion issue, and that whether or not abortion was legal should be a separate debate. I said that whatever a state decided about the legality of abortion ought to be rule with respect genetic issues as with any other issue. Con replied that, no, I still had not gotten her point. Now, my guess is that the resolution Con wanted is, "Pre-natal testing for Down syndrome should be allowed as a basis for an abortion decision by the mother." Con said she is pro-choice, but this is a way to prevent a choice in the particular case of Down syndrome. I am sympathetic to the argument that a choice to abort an unborn baby with Down syndrome ought not be made reflexively; indeed there is much to ponder. However, that is true of any abortion decision. Nonetheless, the mother ought to be the one who does the pondering, and should do so having as many facts as possible. I'm not willing to invoke a cost/benefit argument from the viewpoint of the State or the general public, who might have to provide support for the treatment of the many physical ills that go with Down syndrome. However, there is a cost/benefit analysis from the viewpoint of the mother. Caring for a child having a mental defect imposes a substantial extra strain upon the mother, and coping with that strain successfully demands extra maturity and a better social structure around the mother. An unwed teen who felt she could cope with a normal child might believe she could not cope with a mentally handicapped child. I am arguing that if one generally allows an abortion choice by the mother, one cannot logically exclude a choice for mental handicap.
Genetic screening/child selection

I thank my oponent again for his statement, but as I have repeatedly stated, which I feel you clearly misunderstand, I have no problems with abortion. What I do have a problem with is aborting a child based on what DOCTOR's say about it's genetic structure, and to say that mental disability is a reason to abort your child is indirectly implying that people with mental dissabilities are not fit for life. It devalues the already many disabled that re living now, and what you don't realize is that it's more often than ever not being used for the sake of DIAGNOSING, but rather for the sake of ELIMINATING. This is why I gave the cost/benefit analysis- Government excuse for eliminating the 'unfit'. I don't know where you got the idea that I 'want' the government to make the decision for women. I 'want' women to make the decision clearly of their own free will, with out any influence or 'push' from a doctor. However, again, the problem is that women are being pressured to take these tests, and by taking them you are creating a diagnosis, which is great if you are doing it with the intent of saving the child, but thats not the case. The prenatal screening is like 'fishing for the bad seeds', anything that is not of societal standards, or anything that is going to implement the funds and conditions of those standards, and when you put it into comparison with drug abusing mothers there definately seems to be some bias against the disabled, and 'prevention' through elimination is not the 'cure' but rather a step towards a eugenic movement. It might be a suttle movement, but its a movement just the same. Any sorting of a particular race, gender, handicapp you name it is on the verge of eugenics.
Genetic screening/child selection

Con says, "As I stated before, the problem with screening is that it diagnoses and determines the fate of embryos based on their genetic structure. This is border line eugenics." Pro may reassert that screening is "borderline eugenics," but has thus far given no reason to support the assertion. Consider diagnosing a two year old as having some curable disease. Should diagnosis be avoided because knowing the disease leads to a cure, and applying the cure leads to a violation of natural selection in which the child would ordinarily have died? Making a diagnosis and doing something about it are two different things. Con argues that there should be no genetic screening, because even though in some cases screening might lead to a cure of a genetic defect, in other cases it might lead to an abortion. But whether or not abortion ought to be legal is the subject of separate debate. If it is illegal, then forbidding screening will only serve to hurt children with curable defects. If abortion is legal, then parents are presented with a moral choice which they must make. If Pro wants government to make the choice, then the correct way to do that is to have a law passed that forbids abortion. There is no point in prohibiting genetic screening, and thereby preventing curable defects from being treated, if what one really wants to do is make abortion illegal. Pro argues that tests may be wrong and that tests may be technologically incapable of determining the severity of a defect. That's true, but that is no different from many medical tests. It means that someone must make a decision in the face of some uncertainty. This gets back to the question of who should be empowered to make the decision. It has to be either the parents or the Government. Pro opts for the Government making the decision. That is the abortion debate. It would have been better if Pro simply posted the resolution, "Abortion should be illegal." I didn't want to debate that subject, but it seems there is no choice. My opinion is that during the first trimester, the fetus cannot survive independently of the mother, so therefore it should be considered part of the mother and subject to the mothers choice. In the third trimester, the fetus can survive independently, so abortion ought to be prohibited. In the second trimester it is debatable, so perhaps abortion should be allowed if there is a very good reason. Even in the third trimester, saving the life of the mother is a perhaps the only sufficient reason. That's what I think. However, I don't claim that my opinion is "provably" better than anyone else's. So therefore, I think that the individual states should be allowed to decide the legality based upon the prevailing opinion in the state, and that the rest of us ought to respect that decision. Genetic screening, however, should be legal so that treatable genetic defects, not Down syndrome right now, can be cured.
Genetic screening/child selection

As I stated before, the problem with screening is that it diagnoses and determines the fate of embryos based on their genetic structure. This is border line eugenics. First- These tests are not always accurate, and while they may detect a gene for say Down Syndrome, they do not actually determine the severity of the disease, and while a child amy be a carrier, there is no gaurantee they will be mentally challenged. Also, Amniocentisis, which has to be done in the 1st-2nd trimester, takes several weeks to finish the diagnosis. If the mother is told she should abort, you are looking at a partial birth abortion, because by that time it will be in the third trimester. Second- There are different levels of to diseases, like the Gauchers disease, one of the many they screen for, has three level/types. Type two is the worst. In the case that a child receives type two they may only have hours to live. However, there is only like a 5% chance of getting type two. 99% of children born with Gaucher's are type one, which is treatable and not lethal at all. So, again like I stated before, while they may be a gene carrier, there is no definite promise that the outcome will be as severe as genecists lead you out to think. Third- Curing and treating is absolutely fine. I have no objections for that. Where I raise an argument is when screening is done with the intent of aborting the child. IF the proceedure is done with the intent of saving the child, I do not object. Also, you can treat and cure without screening. How do you expect to treat a dead child, and if all the Down Syndrome children were eliminated, how would you create a cure? People are still predisposed to having Down Syndrome children, so whether they are 'controlled' or not is irrelevant. Women can still have Down Syndrome children. As for the cost/analysis- I feel you have mis-interpreted what cost analysis is. Incase you have, and feel free to correct me, it is the idea that it costs LESS to screen and abort genetically disabled babies, then it does to PAY supporting their living condidtions. 11.4 billion goes to crack addicted born babies a year, while 20,000,000 is spent on FAS children a year. (U. S. consensus doc. )These are situations that create more harm to the baby then down syndrome does, and yet the Government fears they pay too much on the mentally gifted? 1/3 of mentally challenged children are FAS(fetal alchohol syndrome). Only 4.5billion of all American taxes are spent on disablities, and again only 6% goes to the mentally handicapped. So how are Mentally disabled a problem cost wise? 4.5 billion goes to our prison inmates, and thats just for the State of California. As for the conditions and possible complications you have listed, alzheimers occurs more often then Down Syndrome, and you don't have to have DS to get it, same thing applies to most the complications you listed, they can all occur with age.
Genetic screening/child selection

Con argues, "Women are pressured to to undergo genetic pre-natal testing, and then pressured to abort the children for diseases as minor as [Down] syndrome." Women are also pressured to get general pre-natal care and testing having nothing to do with genetic defects. Are women to be freed from pressure to seek good health care? Pressure for good health care is justified. "Down syndrome occurs when an individual has three, rather than two, copies of the 21st chromosome. This additional genetic material alters the course of development and causes the characteristics associated with Down syndrome. ... People with Down syndrome have an increased risk for certain medical conditions such as congenital heart defects, respiratory and hearing problems, Alzheimer's disease, childhood leukemia, and thyroid conditions." http://www.ndss.org... Currently, there is no genetic treatment to cure this defect. However, it is conceivable that such a treatment will be developed. The resolution supports testing for the condition and then treating it with whatever genetic cure is available. That is superior to leaving it undetected and untreated, both from the viewpoint of the treated individual and the society that must provide care for the individual. It is true that currently women will be subject to some pressure to abort detected Down Syndrome unborn babies. Con apparently would pressure women not to abort, and I'm inclined to agree with Con on that. However, the issue is whether genetic testing should be forbidden by law in order for women not to be pressured. It must be a law that is at issue, because the woman can now choose not to be tested. Removing choices from people to save them from pressure is the "freedom of slavery." People can enslave themselves to avoid the torment of choices, and they enslave others to free those people of choices. That approach is completely inconsistent with a free society. Parents should be the ones making choices about children, not government. "Pressure" means exposure to arguments. that's better than suppression of arguments. The observation that many people have some level of disability does not argue that disabilities should go undetected and uncured, which is the subject of the resolution. I have congenital near-sightedness. Hypothetically, why wouldn't shouldn't that be detected and cured? Why should my parents have been "protected" from making that choice? The charm of "natural" disabilities escapes me. Con must explain it. As to cost/benefit analysis, I am in favor of letting the woman make the analysis, not government. That was clear in my opening statement. Con seems to be favoring letting the government determine that costs, both emotional and monetary, should always be borne. That's not a job for government. If the choice of a babies sex has a significant public impact, then it could be regulated. Otherwise it should be the parents choice.
Genetic screening/child selection

I still don't consider the dictionary a valid resource but I will accept it for now. The problem: Women are pressured to to undergo genetic pre-natal testing, and then pressured to abort the children for diseases as minor as down syndrome. "As feminist biologist Ruth Hubbard put it, "Women are expected to implement the society's eugenic prejudices by "choosing" to have the appropriate tests and 'electing' not to initiate or terminate pregnancies if it looks like the outcome will offend. The basic assumption: IS THAT BY ENDING GENETIC DISORDERS WE ARE ENDING A LIFE OF SUFFERING, INCLUDING MENTAL DISSABILITIES. " (Disability Studies Reader Book, collaberated by Leonard J. Davis) Who says that a life with a physical or mental dissability is stressful one, the ones who are dissabled? Furthermore who speaks on the behalf of those who take care of them, do you? Do you have statistical research claiming that most Americans who take care of dissabled children feel imposed by their lifestyles and wished they had aborted them? Based on the U. S. consensus of disability percentage 51.2 million people have some level of disability. That's 18% of the total population. 72% of them are people over 80 who usually suffer age related ailments. "14.3 of people with limitations in cognitive functioning, or mental or emotional illnesses that interefere with their daily lives activities. This includes Alzheimers and mental retardation. " That is only 6% of the population, and if you took out all the other disabilities and only left the mentally challenged, you would have an even smaller percentage of mentally challenged. Almost all other disabilities were work related, war related or caused accidentally. Any disabled is a challenge, but the percentage of those born to those who are caused is very small, and if taking care of those with dissabilities is too stressful then should we give up on those with alzheimers, or cancer or heart diseases? How many years of good health does it take to justify one's existence? Second problem: Cost/Benefit Analysis 'Those who advocate selective abortion to alleviate the suffering of children may often raise that cornerstone of contemporary political rhetoric, cost benefit. Of course cost benefit analysis is not women centered yet women can be directly pressured or subtly intimidated, and it mey be hard for women to resist the argument that it is their duty to "save scarce health dollars"' We spend more tax dollars on welfare, and caused disibilities, along with people 'claiming' to be unfit to work then we do on the mentally challenged. The idea that it costs less to kill them then to help them is proposterous! As for designer babies, check out this CNN News Link, it is happening. . http://www.lifesitenews.com...