BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Harsher punishments for youth who commit crimes.

I wouldn't exactly say that society determined that "under age 18, one's physical, mental, emotional, and social growth is still in the formative stage; not yet fully mature." More like the government decided upon this. I for one do not think that it is true at all. Since the age at which one begins to talk one is taught the difference between right and wrong. I would say even a child of five knows that hurting someone else is bad. A teenager most definitely understands the concepts of wrong and right. It's nto as if suddenly when they turn 18 they have an epiphany and they immediately they grasp the concept. It's one that was cultivated over the years, but it's always there. Everyone, unless in some way mentally incapacitated, knows the difference between right and wrong. First it starts out with a chocolate bar at age 12, then when nothing happens, it moves to movies or video games, and once again when nothing is done about it it turns into a car, and then torturing animals, such as cats and dogs, and as this is one of the "MacDonald triad" it can be a warning sign of a future serial killer. By allowing youth to get away with, murder so to speak, we are allowing for them live by a whole different set of rules than which we should be teaching them. Youth know consequences of crimes, but they are shown more leniant punishments and that is why there is a continued criminality amongst youth. Whether they are 12 or 17 these juveniles know murder, cruelty, theft, etc. are "bad". If they want to act like adults, they deserve to be treated like them.
Harsher punishments for youth who commit crimes.

Let me first ask these questions. What is the legal age to vote? 18. What is the legal age to enlist in the military? 18. What is the legal age to buy alcohol? 21! The legal age for most these hallmarks signaling entry into adulthood is 18 years. Yet, when a youth not yet an adult commits a capital crime, in some court systems the youth is tried and sentenced as an adult. If society does not recognize one as an adult till age 18 for voting and serving in the military and till 21 for buying alcohol, why do youths not yet of legal adult age suddenly become as responsible as an adult when they commit a crime? A person is denied adult privileges till age 18 on the grounds that that is the earliest date of physical, mental, emotional, and social maturity; the earliest time that dependable sound judgements can be made. Does it make sense to treat a person under age 18 as an adult in some situations, and not in others? Spiritually, standing aside and looking at an entire life span, we see the earliest time as a period of physical, mental, emotional, and social growth. In adulthood, deemed by society to be 18 years at the earliest, the person has grown enough to live independently using all aspects of physical, mental, emotional, and social maturity. During adulthood, family and career grow from the deep roots developed before age 18. And, as time goes on and opportunities for showing love increase through caring for family and/or community, the human evolves spiritually into his greatest potential. Spiritually, we each have the responsibility in adulthood to care for and protect the youth of our individual families, and as a society, all youth. Let us not judge youth in their immaturity with the same weight and criteria in the area of criminality that we use to treat adults. Society has already determined that under age 18, one's physical, mental, emotional, and social growth is still in the formative stage; not yet fully mature.
Harsher punishments for youth who commit crimes.

I think it is pertinent that we start to set examples for youth and instead of just giving them the proverbial "slap-on-the-wrist" we start treating them as they deserve to be treated. Firstly, their names most definitely should be printed in the news and spread throughout the media, I think society has the right to that knowledge. It's frightening to live amongst unknown criminals, who we could just as easily be made aware of. It would be wise, and fair to learn the identity of those young criminals who pervade our streets and corrupt others. Punishment of youth criminals should be swift, certain and severe, of course the severity is depending on the crime. But punishment most definitely should be the top priorty for those deciding upon the fate of said youth. By simply letting the youth walk away with little more than house arrest for a month it is implying that basically they can get away with whatever they want. By not punishing the juvenile criminals severely enough, we are allowing for the breeding and upcoming serial murderers and rapists.
Convince me that baseball is more entertaining and a "better" sport than hockey.

I know this seems like a subjective argument but I will try to make it as objective as possible. I am trying to watch baseball and understand it more everyday because I was hired to work for a franchise in the MLB but I cannot find many "very good" reasons to either watch it or consider it a major sport. (By major sport I mean baseball receives a lot of attention on sports center and on sports radio compared to other sports in their regular season.) I feel that hockey does not receive the attention and appreciation it deserves so I would like to hear what a tried and true baseball fan has to say about it. I feel that there should be a special connection between the athlete of a sport and the spectator of the sport. A bond formed by appreciation. The viewer, who understands the sport, should be able to see the difficulty in the sport and appreciate the athlete for being able to withstand the physical demand of the sport itself. I feel that, as spectators, we should recognize that we are investing time into watching a game, and thus should get some entertainment value from that investment. I realize "better" is a hard thing to debate because both sports (hockey and baseball) offer different types of skill sets and entertainment values. To better define what sport is better, I feel like some good points to touch upon are: Amount of action (to help determine the amount of entertainment we receive), length of average televised games (to objectively show the time we receive for the investment of watching the game), and the total amount of games per season (to help sum up the total of entertainment available to the spectator). Some other good points would be to being up some of the skills required to play a satisfactory game in that sport, the difficulty hat is placed on the athletes in each sport, and the type of team play as it relates to other sports. I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. Hopefully I can gain some insight into the fascinating world of baseball to better enjoy and appreciate my job and learn to be a better spectator of the sport.
President Barack Obama has done nothing to deserve the praise he gets

1:A) my opponent stated "That Obama actually raised the unemployment rate fathered than lower it." When we look at his logically it was in fact not Obamas fault the unemployment rate hit the 10% number as it did in 2010, because that was a result of the Great Recession which started, October 2008. Just a reminder that was during Bush's term. Take a look at FDRs unemployment rate numbers two years in, and he was considered the hero of the Great Depression in many instances.Con still has not proved that it was Bush's fault. Not only was it two years into his term that it hit the lowest; simply saying that if we look at this logically does not constitute a good argument. How come the unemployment rate barely changed in the years president Bush was in office and then 1 year after he left it suddenly leapt 2% and the next year 3%. That seems highly unlikely it changed so much AFTER president Bush left office. 2:A) my opponent stated that there's a 3:1 ratio of those uninsured to those insured as a result to the ACA and I hate to be a pain but I really need to see the evidence on that.http://www.lifenews.com...It has a figure of 4 million for those who lost health insurance and a figure of 2 million for those who gained it. Thats a 2:1 ratio. It is less of a difference because it turns out the data I used was old; but it's still significant. Amount of people expected to lose insurance: 80 million; heres the link: http://www.foxnews.com... Thats in the next few years. The expected number of people to gain insurance from the ACA is 27 million; heres the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com... So from this we find that the ratio is expected to reach nearly 3:1. A net loss of 53 million is expected. So the ACA is expected to actually double the number of uninsured people in the country when it was supposed to half that number.I just checked your link and the evidence is false. It says that it ensures affordable coverage for middle income families; however if you pay any attention to the news you will hear about people who are middle class and have healthcare MORE expensive now than before the ACA.Marriage is not included in the UN Declaration of Human Rights so it is not a human right.ConclusionCon needs better evidence to support the theory that it was Bush's policies that caused that spike in unemployment. I have shown that the ACA is doing and expected to do more harm than good. I showed how marriage is not a civil right. Finally it's the praise he's getting not how much he's getting.
President Barack Obama has done nothing to deserve the praise he gets

Also I don't believe necessarily that Obama does get a massive praise? With a 48% approval rating and 50% of people who strongly disapprove that seems to me he doesn't get a massive praise. It's likely the only reason he was even re-elected was because Romney was an idiot. So I don't believe he gets as big of praise as Pro is trying to say he does. 1:A) my opponent stated "That Obama actually raised the unemployment rate fathered than lower it. " When we look at his logically it was in fact not Obamas fault the unemployment rate hit the 10% number as it did in 2010, because that was a result of the Great Recession which started, October 2008. Just a reminder that was during Bush's term. Take a look at FDRs unemployment rate numbers two years in, and he was considered the hero of the Great Depression in many instances. 1:B) All my opponent is saying is that Bush did a better job then Obama at raising the GDP and obviously the numbers agree with that but logically we can see that this an irrelevant point because we aren't comparing who is better. He said Bush didn't get the same praise as Obama, well that's probably because he put us in two trivial wars, and then set a country back 60+ years because they "had WMD's. " Obviously this attack falls. 2:A) my opponent stated that there's a 3:1 ratio of those uninsured to those insured as a result to the ACA and I hate to be a pain but I really need to see the evidence on that and if it accounts for future projections before I can reply to that because I have not found that number in any of my research. Not to mentioned anyone uninsured can now apply for Obamacare at this point. Now that I mention it why would you not want to apply. If you'll take a look at this it shows the ten major benefits of the ACA and keep in mind it's for everyone in the United States not just MA . http://www.mass.gov... 2:B) Hmm we can debate what the definition of a human right is but undisputedly it's a civil right and nonetheless is just as serious to deny. . http://civilliberty.about.com... Conclusion: I've successfully shown why my opponents attacks were unsuccessful. I showed that the reason for the high unemployment rate was the Great Recession which was a result of Bush economic policy. If it's not enough for me to say it then check out this article; . http://dailycaller.com... I showed that Obama has been beneficial to our GDP and that earns him a large amount of praise he gets. Then I showed how beneficial Obamacare can be and I requested to see the evidence for his 3:1 ratio which I await. I also showed how marriage is a civil right, so fundamental at the least. Lastly I showed that there isn't this huge Obama "fan club" ,if you will, like my opponent is making it out to seem. Obama has never had an approval rating above 70% and Bush had an approval rating of 90% at one time and was above 70 almost an entire year. Thus I continue to stand in negation of the resolution and urge a con ballot.
President Barack Obama has done nothing to deserve the praise he gets

I negate the resolution. Resolved "Barack Obama has done nothing to deserve the praise he gets." The con offers the following observation. The resolution that my opponent affirms says Barack Obama has done nothing... In order to win this debate I will merely have to describe to you one example where Obama did something beneficial to at least a single person. *Since I understand that this diminishes from the debate I will provide two full contentions which will allow for me to have an overwhelming stance over my opponent.* I support this stance with the following contentions 1) Domestic Economic Benefits a) Job Creation Since Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2009 he has helped lead to the creation of over 5 million private sector jobs. On net that's about 3.6 million new jobs for American Citizens to be working. Furthermore, as a result of the economic policies put in place by the Bush Administration the unemployment rate in January 2010 was 9.7%. Now that number is below 7%. http://www.politifact.com... http://www.multpl.com... b) GDP growth While under the Obama Administration our GDP has never been at a rate in which it was declining. It's currently at a growth rate of 3.07%. This is beneficial to our economy because it slows down inflation, gives our government more spending room and increases the money we can offer to those below the poverty line. http://www.multpl.com... http://www.investopedia.com... c) Fair Pay Act The fair pay act, which Obama signed into law, helps woman get equal the pay for doing the same work as men. Why was this even an issue? I'm not sure but it was and he helped approximately 156.7 million woman in this scenario. 2) Social Benefits a) Health care For over 30 years politicians of both parties have talked about having a major health care reform. He's the first politician to do something about it. The ACA removes restrictions on pre-existing conditions, makes health care more affordable for small businesses, raises the age at which children can remain on their parents plans, removes lifetime caps, and gives woman access to free preventative health care. Aside from the small exception of insurance executives who would not like those things? b) Gay rights Unfortunately this is still an issue in our country and quite frankly it disgusts me. Now considering he has already helped many states work towards adopting policies that give homosexuals the human rights they deserve, he is helping in that way. He also worked to remove the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy which was a disgusting rule that made our country look ridiculous. Not to mention an overwhelming majority of Americans believe in legalizing gay marriage and even a majority of people on this site. http://thehill.com... It is for these reasons we must stand in negation of the resolution and I urge a con ballot in today's debate. Thank you.
There should be a Christian nation

1. If you watch the whole video of Osama bin Laden declaring war he does declare war on all three also anyone who has ever really studied the Crusades would know that the muslims started those wars by banning Christians from the Holy Land. 2. The Israel flag last time I checked had the Star of David in the center of the flag a well known Jewish symbol so don't try to say that Israel isn't Jewish. 3. Murder is killing in cold blood war is different the enemy is shooting back at you also God built and designed armies and soldiers before thank you and the Holy Bible the Holy Book of the Christian faith says they are going to fight in a massive war in the end anyway so yeah I think military is very important to the Christians. Now for your points 1. Though in America and Europe Christians can be in society with others most of the time but in some places in Asia and Africa Christians are killed also it is not always peaceful between religions in America and Europe I myself living in America have been beaten for carrying a Bible as a free reading book in school by other students and shamed by the adults Christians need one place where they can be with there own kind and be completely safe. 2. Not once in the Bible does it say it stands against all war once again God creates armies of his own telling us we're going to fight in the biggest war ever and has sent warriors to fight. 3. If it is an actual religion with beliefs morals and a set system we have ways to tell what's a religion and what is not many of these cases have made it to supreme court also a nation only has the right to be a nation if it can sustain itself I don't think if they give the guy in the insane asylum a nation all buy himself that it will last very long there are millions of Christians who could form their own productive community and as far as Islam having its own nation they have plenty Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey need I continue these are all devote Islamic nations. 4. Though Christians don't always like war does not mean we are not willing to commit to a few for our own nation also as you said Christians don't support wars so as long as we feel safe we wouldn't bother anyone it could very well be a neutral state when needed for peace talks. To conclude my segment a Christian nation is not an awful idea it could work and people could be happy. Just because we don't need one at the time doesn't mean we wont ever some day someone powerful might come for us then what and as long as the Christians feel safe our people won't want our armies marching around crushing everyone with force we prefer for people to convert when they wish.
There should be a Christian nation

I am not saying it should be America but the Jews have a nation with land they can defend their religion on and the Christians should too. Osama bin Laden declared war on America the Jewish religion and the Christian religion but the Christians can only sign up for service in the United States military system where they may serve under a non Christian commander who doesn't have the same fire to defend his faith like the Christian warrior. So give the Christian faith their own nation in which they can defend build a military system and fight next to their brothers and sisters of faith not for a nation not for a flag not because some leader says so but for their God.
April PFD Topic

I would like to begin by attacking my opponent's case; then I will move on to extending my own case. In my opponent's first contention he argued that there is a need for organ donors in our society. He presented statistics showing that there was a shortage of organ donors. This may be true. However we must see that offering financial incentives is not the way to fix this problem. As I showed in my case this method will have a series of extremely detrimental effects. First it will ruin the altruistic side of organ donation. This was proven in my case and supported by logic. This will weaken any potential benefits gained from financial incentives. This was also proven in my case. Second it will lower the value of humanity. Due to he fact that donors will be offered financial incentive for giving away their organs this will obviously place monetary value on these organs. This is obviously a negative impact. Finally it gives the wealthy who can provide such a incentive an advantage. It also pressures the poor into making bad decisions because of monetary need. This is a third downfall of the financial incentives. We can see that, for these reasons, financial incentives are not the way to solve the issue of organ donation shortages. In my opponent's second contention he argues that making organ donation taboo costs lives. There is nowhere in the resolution that even begins to mention banning organ donations. This is an entirely irrelevant point. In this contention he moves on to discuss various myths associated with organ donation. Non of these myths are actually relevant to the resolution in any way. These myths and the truths provided do not actually provide any reason to permit financial incentives for organ donation. They simply present ignorant myths about organ donation then prove them wrong. This entire contention was simply invalid. In my opponent's third contention he stated that organs that are not donated are wasted. He went on to describe the process of embalming. Given his description of this process it does show that some of the organs are wasted. However he does not show that financial incentives will substantially increase the amount of donations. It is a logical choice to donate one's organs after death some people choose not to based on faith, personal beliefs, or other strongly based personal reasons. Financial incentives will not shake these reasons. If they do it will be in a way that coerces people into forsaking their beliefs for money. This is obviously unacceptable. I see no reason to expand my case. With that I respectfully ask for a Con vote in this debate. Thank you.
April PFD Topic

The resolution is, "Resolved: The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation." The rules are standard NFL PFD rules, and can be read in the [1]link below for any-one unfamiliar with the rules. The format is obviously adapted to this site's layout. Round 1 is for acceptance and clarification Round 2 is for constructive speeches, and constructive speeches alone. (No attacks made here) Round 3 is for attacking your opponent's case, and making extension of your own case. Not refutation or new attacks here Round 4 is for refutation of attacks made, and voters. That said, here's to a fun debate! [1] http://www.nflonline.org...
Thett3 Tournament: Labor Unions are a net benefit to humanity

Thanks to darkkermit for posting the challenge. We have PM'd each other on many clarifying points. One of them is that this debate will encompass both public and private sector workers. Also, as mentioned, the fifth round will be for concluding remarks and will be limited to 4500 characters maximum for each side. Another point of note, my opponent, the instigator is CON and will be arguing that labor unions are a net harm to humanity while I, PRO will be arguing that labor unions are a net benefit. Clarification is useful since readers don't often notice when the instigator is CON. I look forward to a fun challenge.
Thett3 Tournament: Labor Unions are a net benefit to humanity

Definitionsnet benefit to humantiy- the well being of all humanslabor union - an organization of workers formed for the purpose of advancing its members' interests in respect to wages, benefits, and working conditionsdebate rules: 1. No semantics.2. First Round for acceptance, and rule and definition clearification only.3. No new arguments in the last round.4. Text-only debate.5. All source material must be easily accessable This debate will be based on whether labor unions itself are good or bad, not individual policies or laws that can be used to encourage or discourage labor unions. For example, stating that the process of banning labor unions would not be possible is not a valid argument. The BOP of proof is equal. I have to prove that labor unions are a net harm to humanity, while PRO has to prove that labor unions are a net benefit to humanity. The final round will be for concluding remarks and will have a 4500 charcter limit.