BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old

I'm using teen as a means of classifying those below the "adult" line of demarcation (18 years old. ) "Yeah, you're probably right by saying they should vote when they found one they actually agree with. But how do they agree with a party? Politically or just because they think one's better than the other. There's practically no law that says voting only can take place if one thoroughly analyzes a party. Not everyone votes the same way. Not everyone puts the same things into consideration. Teens can actually give a lot to America because many start serving in the military at 18 and get a job before that. " See, the thing is, they agree to a party though their own ideology. They should have done research on whom all is running and what presidential candidate better suits their own ideology. Of course, not everyone votes this way, which is an example of inconsiderate voting. Teenagers are currently LEARNING government other things around this age, therefore they need to broaden their horizons more by investing more time in the class before actually venturing to vote. The difference is that an 18 year old is going to college, learning how to sustain themselves, finding jobs, getting married, managing fiscal needs. All of this may seem like a handicap, but it's really a symbol of adulthood and responsibility. Teenagers are dependent on their parents at 16. "At the age of 16 teens can be treated like an adult. They can pay taxes, have a driver's license with little to no restrictions and can be charged for adult crimes even death penalty, get married and so on. " The death penalty argument is only applicable in a few states (and by few, I mean like 3. ) Teenagers are not completely adults yet, this is more of a pre-adult initiation. Voting itself is a vital part of America, and the majority of individuals go to college at this point. As I stated, this gives a sense of responsibility, and in addition they've completed government classes and the like and well-versed by the time they graduate. Many teens, as I said, would simply not care and vote for whomever seems more superficially appealing or who preaches a good game. Many adults may do this too, but we do not need teens to jump on that bandwagon too. In conclusion, voting at the age of 16 is unneeded, as teenagers are going through high school and are simply just beginning their government classes. More and more people apparently vote less each year, however if this holds true then should teenagers that don't care have the ability to vote? Many would vote simply to vote. This could dangerously shift America's equilibrium into having a leader that caters to not the majority, but the teens' inconsiderate vote. 16 year olds would do it, but simply to vote for whomever seems appealing. "Omg, a black president? No wayyyy, voting Sarah! " We do not need a cataclysm happening by electing Palin (irrelevant, but it proves a point. )
People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old

Let me just say that you're mainly referring to "teen" as a 16 year old. We have to both keep in mind that an eighTEEN year old is still a teen. Just saying that so we can avoid confusion. Definition of "vote": express one's preference for wordnetweb.princeton.edu "What I'm saying is that people should only vote if they have analyzed all parties, considered possibilities, found one they actually agree with, and so on, and so forth. Basically, I expect them to make a smart vote. Do you really expect this from a teenager? Let's face it, teens don't give much towards America." Yeah, you're probably right by saying they should vote when they found one they actually agree with. But how do they agree with a party? Politically or just because they think one's better than the other. There's practically no law that says voting only can take place if one thoroughly analyzes a party. Not everyone votes the same way. Not everyone puts the same things into consideration. Teens can actually give a lot to America because many start serving in the military at 18 and get a job before that. At the age of 16 teens can be treated like an adult. They can pay taxes, have a driver's license with little to no restrictions and can be charged for adult crimes even death penalty, get married and so on. In conclusion, 16 year olds should be allowed to vote because, they are young but intelligent. Like stated before, 16 year olds are often taking some type of government class or civics at that age which could make it one of the key ages to start. It pretty much means they could be the smarter voters. Governments, including the United States are desperate to bring the young people back into the civic fold, to try and make them feel they have a stake in their country. Incorporating voting at an earlier age is essential because less and less people are voting every year. Earlier you said that many 16 year olds won't do it. Exactly. If that's what you're saying then only the ones who will know what's going on will vote and have the say, although I think many more should vote. Thank you for this great debate Con.
People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old

"Most teenagers begin to learn responsibility at about 16 years old. At this age they're becoming adults, but they're not there yet. They're learning things like having a drivers license and started relationships if haven't started already. But, this particular statement that they learn responsibility at whatever age is more of an opinionated topic." You're right, responsibility stems at its own time. However, it occurs most often in a setting where one is ready to venture out onto their own. Allow me to elaborate. If someone's going to go to college, gonna have the dorm and be living on their own for a change, it initiates a tinge of self-realization. The person realizes how to sustain themselves, the tricks to doing laundry, food, attire, sleep schedules, all of it. They learn responsibility. It's our system that helps nudge teens to that stage. A 16 year old is still in high school, working on grades, perhaps even slacking off, too busy with relationships and learning how to cope with angst and acne let alone to vote. "That's actually very true. Not many teenagers are very included in politics. How many Americans who are 18 years old actually care that much? What about people who are 35 years old? A lot do, but then again some actually don't. It seems to me that you're saying people can and should only vote if they're well-versed in politics." The majority of Americans that DO vote actually know what they're doing. No, I'm not saying people who are only well-versed in politics should vote. What I am saying is that people should only vote if they have analyzed all parties, considered possibilities, found one they actually AGREE with, and so on and so forth. Basically, I expect them to make a smart vote. Do you really expect this from a teenager? Let's face it, teens don't give much towards America. Many don't care who is president as long as it doesn't impact them in any way. Again, there's exceptions, but this is the general mindset. Like I said, how many voters have a standpoint in politics today? I know a lot do but some still don't. So those people shouldn't vote at all? That risks alienating citizens in thinking that the only way for them to have a say is to be politically active. I disagree with that." Um. How else WOULD citizens have a say? You seem to think I'm saying that everyone needs a PhD in politics or something. No. They need to know what's going on with the presidential candidates, who's advocating what, who seems to be the better choice, etc. Honestly, America would be much better if only COMPETENT voters voted. "Quality over quantity." There is an infinitesimal leap from 16 year old to 18 year old. I doubt a teenager is going to shun voting if they have to wait 2 years. Senior citizens voted more because they have more knowledge and experience. Nothing to do with age, rather with retrospect. Thank you.
People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old

I actually strongly disagree with when you stated "On the contrary, this is the very REASON that the voting limit should stay where it is. At this stage in a person's life, they're learning responsibility." Most teenagers begin to learn responsibility at about 16 years old. At this age they're becoming adults, but they're not there yet. They're learning things like having a drivers license and started relationships if haven't started already. But, this particular statement that they learn responsibility at whatever age is more of an opinionated topic. "You think a teenager that is in high school and going through the whole "teenager stage" is going to care about politics? Granted, there are exceptions, however the majority of early teenagers are not well-versed in politics." That's actually very true. Not many teenagers are very included in politics. How many Americans who are 18 years old actually care that much? What about people who are 35 years old? A lot do, but then again some actually don't. It seems to me that you're saying people can and should only vote if they're well-versed in politics. "16 year olds have a standpoint in politics? Do you honestly think that we should expand the ability to decide our nation's future for the next 4 years to teenagers?" Like I said, how many voters have a standpoint in politics today? I know a lot do but some still don't. So those people shouldn't vote at all? That risks alienating citizens in thinking that the only way for them to have a say is to be politically active. I disagree with that. "And studies show voting is a habit that has to start early. If people don't start out as voters, they're less likely to ever vote. Some researchers fear that as this generation of nonvoters ages, they will stay that way, causing a dangerous dive in voter turnout as baby boomers and older generations die out. In the 2000 election, senior citizens voted at about twice the rate of 18- to 24-year-olds." By: Carl Weiser of the Enquirer Washington Bureau To see the actual article go to this link http://www.enquirer.com... Good luck to you!
People Should Be Able to vote at 16 years old

Currently, in the United States of America the legal voting age is 18 years old. Now, I'm sure the government has this because when you're at 18 years old you're technically an adult. I think that this is not fair at all because the government is pretty much saying that only adults can decide who rules our country. But, many people actually believe that 18 is the worst age to start voting because so many steps are being made in the person's life, going to college, getting a job, possibly starting a family/relationship. Studies also show that the sooner you start voting the more confident and consistent voter you'll turn out to be. Many Americans never vote and if this is put in their mind at an earlier age, I believe that the nation could actually get more voters and everyone's voice can be heard. In fact, in the 2000 election people over the age of 50 had twice as many voters than people in the age group of 18-24. Another argument I'll make is that kids are still in school at the age of 16 unless drop out or early graduation. Usually at this age, kids are taking some type of government class which can actually make them smarter voters. Voting is not necessarily something you get good at since its your stand point. That's why I believe that if we incorporate voting at an earlier age such as 16, we'll have more voters in the future and people will think about it a little more. I'd definitely like to have a good debate about this. Good luck! http://www.enquirer.com...
The whole world should switch to the metric system.

Ok, once again I'll address the points raised by my opponent. What I gather from my opponent's rebuttal is his whole argument is centered around a 'why bother?' attitude. I feel I have already gone through this, although I will summarise; 1) Problems with conversion between units has caused problems more than once 2) It is a bothersome and annoying problem in daily life 3) One system of measurement is clearly more accurate than the other (my opponent actually agrees with me on this point) The difficulties of switching units need not be great. I imagine it could be done totally in a matter of generations. All that is required is a total stop of the teaching of the imperial system in schools, and a little effort to ease in the metric system into cultural arenas such as sports and TV shows. I admit that the latter may prove to be much more difficult, however the end result is rewarding: A universal system of measurements, which is as accurate as we can possibly get it with our current knowledge. I've never made the claim that people using the imperial system are incapable of scientific progress, however I do think that a system of measurement more rooted in scientific principles would make such progress easier. A universal system certainly could make international scientific progress that little bit easier. The units of time you described are not at all arbitrarily chosen which is what you seem to be suggesting. I am not advocating that everything be multiples of ten, just that they make sense. This is where the imperial system fails spectacularly as I will now demonstrate. Let's just go through a few units used in this system. Yard- This is the base unit, I am having trouble finding its origin but it could be anything from a random number of "0.9144 metre." to "being the distance between the tip of the king's nose and the end of his thumb.". Inch- This is illogically the smallest practical unit in the metric system. For all intents and purposes, people use fractions of inches when dealing with small measurements. This clearly creates pointless arithmetic problems when adding fractions. Mile- Another round of pointless and tedious conversion with one mile being equal to 1760 yards or 5280 feet. Keep in mind that these numbers seem to be randomly chosen. Pound- This is exactly 0.45359237 kilograms. I've been trying to find a scientific explanation of this number to no avail. It seems to have been just chosen at random. Fahrenheit- This unit is a mix of pointless complication and impracticality. Based off a mixture of salt and water, a series of calculations and pointless arithmetic gives the final answer.
The whole world should switch to the metric system.

I acknowledge that it is not a big thing having to convert things in general conversation, but it still adds up. The main point is, this conversion of feet/yards/gallon is simply not needed. In Australia, we mainly get USA television shows, and I have to constantly think of what they're talking about when I'm watching CSI or something and they say something like 'Oh, he fell 3 feet to his death'. The problems of general use, are not serious but it is very bothersome and totally avoidable. With scientific use, yes it actually is a big deal. Aside from the fact that it is a much more logical system of measurement (see below) the use of two systems of measurements has actually endangered the lives of people and set back scientific progress. While I do agree that the engineers are primarily to blame for the mess up in conversion, the simple fact remains that these things were totally avoidable and could have been averted entirely through the use of a single system of measurements. Now to explain why the SI system is the most logical system. Base units of measurement are based on universal constants Meter- is the distance that light travels in a vacum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Kilogram- is equal to the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram, it is also almost exactly equal to one liter of water. Celsius- Temperature scale whereby 0 degrees is the freezing point of water and 100 degrees is the boiling point of water. Besides the obvious practicality of having base units that are not arbitrarily defined, the metric system has the distinct advantage of having all its units multiples of 10. For example Centimeter- 1/100th of a meter Millimeter- 1/1000th of a meter Kilometer- 1000 meters This makes it incredibly easy to move between units, all that is needed is to move the decimal point. The Imperial system of measurements is so messed up and needlessly confusing, it makes my head hurt. But I'll get onto that in round 4.
The whole world should switch to the metric system.

I disagree the opinions of my opponent. If you think there are only 200 people in our Earth. 197 people use their feet to measure length habitually. Only 3 people use their arms to measure length habitually. So, we can assume the standard of length in the society is 1 feet, but only 3 people use the standard of 1 cubit. But in the situation, do you really think the 3 people should change their standards? If they think bothersome and tedious 'conversion factors' in equations are less than uncomfort to change thier standards of measurements, Do you still say "The three people should change their standards of length?" I think you can say "As I have mentioned before, we have the advantage that the SI system of measurements is based on solid principles of logic and reason, based on scientific principles and constants. While on the other hand, the Imperial system of measurements is based on arbitrary objects such as someone's foot as well as having none of the linking factors that the SI system has. So, Your analogy miss my point." But, Why we need solid principles of logic and reason, based on scientific principles and constants in this area of measurements? Because it can give comfort to people. What do you think someone's foot can only be arbitrary objects? It can much cheaper and easier to use than ruler. In addition, ruler in the market also have some error. We can say only the standards based on physical principles are only exact. But in our real world, the "physical principles" can be easily realized? It is expensive and hard to use. I can say it is also illogical. But if we already know the centimeter's of our feet, we can easily use the arbitrary objects and calculations can be easily finished. In addition, USA is a complex and big country. Changing standards of measurements in USA costs a lot of expense also. Do you really think the expenses are less than the uncomfort of calculations? I'll wait your reply.
The whole world should switch to the metric system.

Let me first get some definitions out of the way. The whole world- Well, to be honest I am mainly referring to the United States, however to be fair I included the other two countries that don't have the metric system (Liberia and Myanmar). Metric System- This is the metric system of measurements, with meter, centimeter, kilometer, newton, etc... This may also be referred to as SI units, which stands for Systeme Internationale (French for 'International System). I contend that the world should be unified under a single system of measurements. This should occur for several clear and important reasons. Namely the ease at which calculations can occur without the need to use bothersome and tedious 'conversion factors' in equations as well as an inter-cultural linking of a single international system. Along with this we have the advantage that the SI system of measurements is based on solid principles of logic and reason, based on scientific principles and constants. While on the other hand, the Imperial system of measurements is based on arbitrary objects such as someone's foot as well as having none of the linking factors that the SI system has. Through these 5 rounds, I will show the advantages of a single system of measurement, the superiority of the SI system of measurements as well as the inferiority and arbitrary nature of the imperial system of measurements. I sincerely thank anyone who accepts this debate.
The whole world should switch to the metric system.

You seem to be repeatedly stressing that 'it will not be easy' to do worldwide metrication. I say: So what? 95% of the world already uses the metric system and the slight inconveniance of that 5% learning one worldwide system will have great benifits. There is no reason for the majority to suffer the pointlessness of the imperial system when there is a much, much better system out there, a point which you seem to concede. I fully believe that the imperial system could be entirely phased out in a matter of generations. It is true that it may take time to make the metric system habit, although it wouldn't be nearly as hard as you allude to. Australia has made the switch very easily, with barely anyone talking in imperial units. All it takes is government support and it can be done. You go on to talk about how the metric system has been adapted to be more and more accurate, and how the imperial system could become such a system. However this isn't the case, surely if there were to be a clear scientific definition of inches and yards and it proved to be more practical than the metric system, then it would be used. To argue that the metric system is a 'random choice' is simply wrong, they are based on things, real things and real constants. Things match up and things work. If the imperial system were to be better than the metric system and I was in the 5% that didn't use it, I'd see no reason not to switch. Summing up.
The whole world should switch to the metric system.

Your argument is based on the benefit in the future. I also think if we still leave our current problem, future will not be different also. But, this debate is happened in 'this' time and deal with the current situation. So, I still argue the expense in the present. For example in my nation, although our government united metric system since 1964, Koreans still use both metric system and the old system of 'cheok-gwan' of many parts in daily lives. So the completely united standards of measurements are not completed in the Korean society yet. Recently, Korean government pressure to people to ONLY use metric system in their whole daily lives, but it is not a easy task in this situation. So this experience, I think the changing of standards in USA are also not the easy task that you think. So, even if I agree USA should start to switch to the metric system, but, it should be not started without to complete prepare the plan of minimizing complexity because of changing standards of units by USA government. From this view, your arguments can justified more than my argument in the near future, but not now. In addition, I can still oppose many of your reasons, so I can still cause damage to your arguments. Kilogram- is equal to the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram, it is also almost exactly equal to one liter of water. Celsius- Temperature scale whereby 0 degrees is the freezing point of water and 100 degrees is the boiling point of water. This is the example that you showed me and you say it is the evidence metric system have more reasonable. But, originally Meter is based on 1/40000000 of the meridian line. The definition of meter in your example appeared later because of making more accurate system. In addition, yard can also be defined again by using the speed of light to pursue more accurate system. Just, metric system appeared more faster and widely used in the world, to the frankly speaking, it have no logical reasons metric system is more advanced system than the imperial system. What on earth 1/299,792,458 and 1/40000000 are not random definition also? Then, pound also can be defined again by using new 'yard' and using water. So, kilogram are also random choice by scientists in the past time. Celsius are also the same thing in this aspect. Do you still argue metric system are not a random choice like imperial system? 'The units of time you described are not at all arbitrarily chosen which is what you seem to be suggesting. I am not advocating that everything be multiples of ten, just that they make sense. ' Just that they make sense? It is the whole reason that the system of time and imperial system different? No, no. Please more elaborate on this. In a nutshell, I think imperial system and metric system are the same in the aspects of random choice, the arguments of united metric system can be only supported by the reason. - Promoting convinience.' I'll wait your final reply.