BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Legal drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 19

Alcohol in itself is not bad. However, the problem lies in the abuse of alcohol. People love to consume alcoholic beverages. Thus, millions of people worldwide fall into alcohol's enticing trap. The death toll related to alcohol abuse is unimaginable. According to the National Council of Alcohol and Drug Dependency, 105,000 Americans are killed each year in alcohol-related crashes.Thats 105,000 more deaths than there shoould have been due to "ice and vehicle malfunctions along with poor drivers" This number is extremely high among young adults, even those under the legal drinking age. In addition, it is estimated that nearly 14 million of the American population are alcoholics. However, the effects of alcohol abuse are not limited to the United States. It is estimated that 1 in 3 European men between the ages of 15 and 30 will die due to alcohol abuse. Therefore the united states is not the only country effected by it as my opponent seems to think. Accidents will not be the only cause of all of these deaths. Alcohol-related illnesses and health problems will contribute to premature death. Alcoholic beverages contain a substance called ethanol. This substance can potentially cause damage to the central nervous system. Those who drink in moderation do not have to concern themselves with this problem. Ethanol does not affect the body until a person reaches their tolerance level. When this occurs, a person's brain function slows and they may begin to giggle uncontrollably or feel sleepy. This is the time to stop drinking. Those who continue to drink will likely experience slurred speech, blurred vision, and poor coordination. The body has the ability to safely dissolve ethanol. However, during extreme drinking binges, the body cannot work fast enough, which may result in alcohol poisoning, coma, or death. Prolong alcohol abuse is responsible for brain cell loss, poor memory, depression, and violent behavior. Yes there is abuse without alcohol, but does drinking help it? No, in fact, it worsens it seeing as the user is not themselves when alcohol is in use. the user may not even be a violent person, but alcohol dulls your senses and most are incapable of knowing right and wrong in a drunk state. By lowering the drinking age like my opponent said, where wiil there be any improvement among society? We already have to live with alchohol as he said. Some against their free will, such as Parents who drink around there children. Again i would like to point out that the alchohol in itself is not bad. As said before its the harsh abuse of it. For whatever reason they made the law of the drinking age at 21, it is benificial. My concern is only for myself, my family, and all my friends and loved ones who are open to a world of alcohol as well.
The Legal drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 19

My opponent is saying that young people are not responsible enough to drink at the age of 21 to drink then why does it work in other countries where the drinking age is lower than ours and they have less problems with it than we do. He is also saying that it does not have a good effect on our society. He says that it leads to death by vehicle but so does other things like ice and vehicle malfunctions along with poor drivers, some of who can be worse than drunk drivers. He also says it can lead to abuse in homes but there can be abuse with out alcohol. I know that I am right now playing the devils advocate by listing the possibilities that exist with out alcohol but thats the truth of life. Yes some people will abuse alcohol and could lead to any of his above statements. I believe that if the legal drinking age was lowered it would help teach people how to live with alcohol. And i also believe that after a while the drinking age can be lowered even more. That way it is not seemed as a drink that can mess you up. The only reason that the drinking age is 21 now is because back when states could choose florida was figuring the amount the could get from spring break kids from other states where it was not 21. So the federal government blackballs the states by saying that if they want their highway funding they have to comply.
The Legal drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 19

ok first of all I would like to start my argument about responsibilty. If most people at the age of 21 still aren't responsible enough to drink and not cause harm to others, what makes us think we can allow 19 year olds to be any better? I know that that not all people aree irresponsible drinkers, but the affect the drinking has on society is not a good one. 1: Obviously it leads to death by vehicle(being drunk does not help your driving skills) 2:Problems in family, most familys who have drinkers usually experience problems. Alchohol makes people less careful of their surroundings, and more violent. It would likely lead to abuse. 21 year olds although would not be much better, have another two years of experience and control. If the person themselves drinks alone somewhere with friends where they can't do any harm to society, then there would be restriction as much with age. however some people who think they are responsible after drinking go out and accidentally, due to hallucegenics, harm somebody else. 19 year olds wouldn't help the cause of keeping anyone safe, in fact it would get worse. If anything the drinking age should be raised to a higher age where a little more responsibibility is expected.The concept of harm reduction has evolved over nearly 90 years from its beginnings in the 1920s, when it applied to drug misuse in adult populations.1 Applying the concept to adolescent groups at risk is relatively new, requiring that the concept be adapted appropriately. "The harm reduction approach, taking social context and developmental stage of the individual into account, may also be applied to adolescents at the less extreme end of the substance abuse spectrum."2 Adolescent harm reduction spans a wider array of harmful behaviours than are discussed in the literature: substance misuse, multiple sexual partners, violence and weapon carrying, non-use of helmets when cycling, skating, or snowboarding, riding with a driver who has been drinking, and suicide plans. But the main contributor to death from injuries in people in the United States under the age of 21 is underage drinking.
Schools should use the 45/15 plan

Summer vacation is also used for maintenance on the school, usually pieces that cannot be done during a school year (even with these short breaks). Summer break is too much of a important time period for school systems to reevaluate. What if some schools adopt a 45/15 plan and others around it do not? They're division [for sports] would have problems definitely amongst other things. Students arrive in college at around the same time of year as well.
Schools should use the 45/15 plan

My opponent stated that the period of breaks won't flow well with sports and clubs. I live in Arizona and my brother attends high school where the sports continue even after fall break. These sorts still continue through these breaks with optional games and practices. So, if a school was to adopt the 45/15 plan they can still continue to have the sports even during break with optional practices and games due to the fact some athletes may be on a vacation. My opponent also stated that the mind is like a muscle in your arm, and that the student would benefit from quickly jumping back in within a shorter span of time. An easy solution to this would to just assign, say a packet, to the student over the break and if they complete it when they return to school then they could earn extra credit. Different schools could also start the school year on different days so the breaks would be scattered for different schools, or different school districts. I used to live in Pennsylvania, and now live in Arizona, the starting dates are widely spread where in Arizona the start date was August fourth and in Pennsylvania school usually starts after labor day so about the beginning of September. In "traditional" school (normal school calender) the school is finding that the summer break is too long, and it takes about one to one and a half months to have the students play catch up.
Schools should use the 45/15 plan

Taking breaks in between these periods of school isn't healthy for the education of a student. Also, it doesn't flow well with extracurricular activities such as sports and clubs. The mind is like a muscle in your arm. When a student is taught something, the student will benefit greatly from quickly jumping back to the material within a shorter span of time. This isn't so much of a problem if the lesson/subject/etc. can be taught over a few weeks but when you get older it takes more time to cover material. I have been studying World War II since August in my high school and we just got into the Battle of Midway. If we would have taken those three weeks off between, for example the first and second semesters, students are no doubt (most, but unlikely all) going to forget many aspects of the European theater that is covered before the Pacific War. This goes for other subjects as well. In English, literature studies can start to take time to cover. Etc. It doesn't fit in sports as well either. High school sports are focused around school operations and although it doesn't seem to factor much in this situation, it can still bare problems. Also, it is not uncommon for families to vacation during these breaks and especially during summer vacation. Schools across the United States (and probably the globe) do not start on the same day. For instance, schools in New York (which has adapted Common Core, which requires all students in New York that are eligible to take the Regents exam to take it on the same days) start on the approximately the same day (between September 1st and September 10th usually) and schools in Pennsylvania start around the 20th of August. Having lived in New York and Pennsylvania, I can first hand confirm that the dates of school starts are accurate. Further backup details about city-wide and statewide testing/assessments in New York can be found here: http://schools.nyc.gov... Again, these are just some examples.
Schools should use the 45/15 plan

I stand affirmative for schools using the 45/15 plan, and if you don't know what the 45/15 plan is.... well it's basically where a school is year-round and the school teaches for 45 days (8 weeks, not including weekends), and then the students would have break for 15 days (3 weeks, not including weekends). The students would still be attending school for the required 180 days a year. . Also the usual holiday breaks (Christmas Break, Spring Break, etc.) are still included into the calendar. This way the students get a nice break, but isn't to long, and then when they come back to school they are refreshed and ready to learn. There are also different versions of this schedule, such as the 60/20 plan and the 90/30 plan. Source: www.nea.org (National Education Association)
Resolved: The SOPA Act is Constitutional

I have not broken any rules. Pro's frivolous attempt to defend himself by turning the tables was futile. It never stated that we can not use Youtube videos and they were part of my case since I couldn't explain because of the short character limit. However my opponent broke the rules again because he brought up his rebuttal in the LAST round rather than the fourth C1 did have evidence because it is violating liberty and the first amendment, I don't think I need a source for the first amendment. C2 is related to the constitution for the founding fathers and the people who amend the constitution do consider the economy when making laws. Pro drops his first contention and says that protecting a law is a constitutional right but that is absurd. Protecting the law to enslave people is constitutional, no? I apologize to the readers for my opponent's poor conduct but if you vote for him you are setting a precedent for other debaters to break rules as well.
Resolved: The SOPA Act is Constitutional

My Opponent has once again accused me of breaking the rules. I again will point out that he has broken the rules as well. But more importantly, we should stick to the actual issues presented here today. My opponent claims that I have not refuted his claims. However, this is an outright lie. His contention one has no evidence, and he failed to answer the questions about this in his CX. Furthermore, his second contention is irrelevant to the question of constitionality. Returning to my own case, he fails to refute the fact that upholding the law is a constitutional right. I also offered that the courts allready have this power, it is just a process for doing so more efficently. In Conclusion, my opponent provides no evidence for any of his claims and fails to refute the Affirming contentions. Furthermore, he provides YouTube videos instead of a case, in clear violation of the rules.
Resolved: The SOPA Act is Constitutional

Note: My opponent has broken the rules set in Round one. It says that Round 4 is for the rebuttals, not CX. Thus sorry Pro but you have already lost the debate. Rules are rules and the voters can now vote Con. However I still will do my rebuttal. R1: Constitutional Right? ?It NEVER states in the constitution that the government has the right to censor the internet or any such venture. All what he cites states is that the Congress can SECURE the writings and discoveries, not remove entire sites based on "copyrighted" material or "offensive" material. R2: Extension of rightsI can not detangle his syntax to understand what he is saying here. There is no citation in the constitution and it is not pertinent. Yes, they have power. However they do not have the power to completely get rid of material and jobs on the Internet. Unconstitutional. Summary Pro has broken the rules and has not refuted any of my contentions. Do not let him try to do it in the last round, that is illegal.
Resolved: The SOPA Act is Constitutional

CX: Seeing as upholding a Copyright is a constitutional right, and the SOPA Act is limited to copyrighted works, is it not therefor constitutional? How does stopping a crime "hinder free expression" or liberties? You provide an example of a baby video. Is the site liable? How can you do so as the bill has not been enacted? Considering we are talking about only CONSTITUTIONALITY, isn't your second contention completely irrelevant to today's debate? Considering the fact that Internet piracy steals money from the Entertainment industry, would the SOPA Act not ENCOURAGE JOB GROWTH? My opponent accuses me of being abusive. However, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely broken the rules of the debate by providing videos instead of a case. Seeing as my opponent is breaking the rules of the debate, while failing to provide any argument relevant to the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the SOPA Act, you should vote Pro in today's round. Next: Summary
Resolved: The SOPA Act is Constitutional

I can barely write anything but all I have to say is watch the videos to see the act's fradulence. C1: First Amendment violation and liberty violation My opponent can deny it as much as he wants it is completely internet censorship. I urge the readers to watch both videos to understand. Over simple copyrighted videos entire websites will be lost. There is no reason to go into such an endeavour that violates the privacy of individuals, such as a baby video that was taken off the internet for simply having music in the back that they didn't source. C2: Negative Economic ImpactOn October 28, 2011, the EFF called the bill a "massive piece of job-killing Internet regulation," and said, "This bill cannot be fixed; it must be killed." [1] The act will get rid of jobs and should not be passed. Vote CON to keep your account on this site and because PRO is completely abusive. See comment for source. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Resolved: The SOPA Act is Constitutional

No This is untrue. As long as the site does not engage in the violation of US Copyright law, they are not liable (Page 25, Line 22). Punishing Criminals is Constitutional, Yes. SOPA is not an attempt to censor the public, nor does it meet the definition of Censorship. However, they do have a right to punish a felony (Copyright Infringement). These are obviously different things. However, you have yet to prove that SOPA is Censorship. If the Courts allready have the ability to use the powers granted in the SOPA Bill, we can assume that the SOPA Bill is constitutional as well, as it simply makes the process easier. The SOPA Act does not violate the ability of people to follow their free will, it only gives law enforcement a tool to catch criminals. A) The bill gives the power to demand that ISPs turn off service, which will stop IP Addresses as well. B) This is irrelevant as we are debating the constitutionality. Please forgive me, this is my first debate. Please continue with your Con Case.
Resolved: The SOPA Act is Constitutional

I will follow the framework provided and ask my questions. I would also like to note to the voters that Pro ridiculously set up a 1,000 character limit (should already cost him the loss on abusiveness).Was it ever stated in the constitution that they can censor the internet?Are you aware that the bill says that if copyrighted material is copied on to a website, the owner/host of the website is legally responsible? So if one person posts copyrighted material on lets say Facebook, Facebook will be closed? Do you consider this constitutional?Where in the constitution does it state that the government has the right to censor private interaction?How is securing something (like you provided) and censoring something the same thing?Can you justify your 2nd contention at all? How is this even what the bill says at all?How is it constitutional to violate the liberty of individuals?Do you know that SOPA act will not stop any pirating because individuals can simply just enter the IP Adress instead?
Resolved: The SOPA Act is Constitutional

A report concluded that "the U.S. economy loses a total of $12.5 billion in economic output every year". [1] With this in mind, the SOPA Act was created to deter this crime in America. As such, I affirm today's resolution. Contention One: The SOPA Act is a constitutional right In Article 1, section 8 of the US Constitution, congress is given the right to pass bills that both provide for the general welfare, as well as to"secur[e] ... the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". Thus, the SOPA Act is protecting a constitutional right. Contention Two: The SOPA Act extends existing rights As it currently stands, the SOPA Act gives "the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders the right to seek court orders"[2]. Seeing as the courts already have this power, it is constitutional. In conclusion, we can see that the SOPA Act is both within the framework of the Constitution, and has already proven to be Constitutional. As such, I urge a Pro ballot.
Resolved: The SOPA Act is Constitutional

For clarity here are some definitions: SOPA Act- The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as H. R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill expands the ability of U. S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual propertyand counterfeit goods. [2] [1]constitutional- Established by or operating under a constitution [2]I believe that the SOPA Act is a complete violation of privacy and liberty to the online media and will present my arguments in the next round. Thanks to MasterLD for proposing this topic and I look forward to his case! Sources:. http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
Worst President

Well, my oppaent must have no argument, as she forfeited, but here are some more aruments for Johnson.He failed, and failed utterly; failed so miserably that, in the last weeks of his Administration, he could only revenge himself by absurd attempts wantonly to vex his successor. He nominated to the Senate for consul to Havana a soldier who was conspicuously the enemy of General Grant, and for minister to Chile, General Grant's brother-in-law and friend. Mr. Johnson's Administration has had, however, the good result of proving the character of the people. At every moment of his evil career it has been evident that the country condemned him; and undoubtedly it anticipated his removal when he was impeached. There verdict against him failed of the necessary two-thirds vote
Worst President

Well I actualy agree with you, however I could not resist debating someone whos entire argument and opening statment is Andrew Johnson Was by far the worst president ever... I'll give hime this though he came to America's leasership at a hard time in our history putting a country back together after a civil war is never easy and nobody would have done a perfect job. He did his best despite his poor leadership skills and the post war recustruction could have taken much longer and been much different without him.
Books that have a movie

Unfortunately, he/she has given us no reason to accept their position, so I have nothing to refute. Fortunately for me, I'm prepared to make my own arguments: Books should not be made about movies. They take too long to read, and are quite boring. Besides that, if the movie has already been made, most people have seen it, and wouldn't be interested in reading a book about a movie they've already seen. Instead of books being made about movies, May I suggest the book be written FIRST, then maybe make a movie about the book? This seems like a better idea than the one proposed by my opponent (making books about movies) because of the reasons above.
Medea is Not Responsible for her Actions

1) I don’t believe in mercy killings if the other person didn’t ask for it in this case the kids. To me it sounds like vengeance kills. She is on a rampage killing a lot of humans out of anger. 2) I get the point your trying to prove but just because she believes in something strongly to the point where she sees it as right doesn’t make it right. It had people who thought the world was flat and you couldn’t tell them different doesn’t mean they were right though. 3) She could of saved them by not killing the royal family and giving her kids a real role model to look up to and not have them pay for her sins. 4) Agree 5) This isn’t an accomplishment in anyone’s standards not just ours I cant agree with you saying she picked the lesser of two evils because we know for sure one option was her killing her kids but on the other hand we don’t know for sure what the kingdom would of done to the kids. 6) In the end they had to suffer at her own hands, which is just as bad as another because death would still be the end result. 7) I agree.