BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The national drinking age should be lowered to 18

My opponent says that alcohol is harmful to the development of a human brain yet he fails to mention that alcohol would be harmful to a brain that is already developed as well. Excessive drinking can cause Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome is a brain disorder due to vitamin B1 deficiency. People who have this disorder have side effects on their brain are characterized by: confusion, coordination problems, hallucinations, memory problems, eye problems, and even inducing a coma or death, if it's left untreated. This man says that the government changed the age to 21 in 1984. Yet before the government recognized the evils in alcohol beforehand by prohibiting the sale of alcohol in the United States. The government realized this but decided to appease the people of the United States issue by raising the drinking age to 21. People were purchasing alcohol illegally anyways. Organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving led the assault against Capitol Hill to pass the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. It seems as if everyone thinks that the only drunk drivers are the ones under the age of 21. This man says that teens are not able to handle the responsibility of Mood altering substances. As if adults can handle mood altering substances. Adults outside of college drink and drive as well. Colleges and Universities often argue that the legal drinking age should be 18 because outlawing alcohol consumption in colleges for those under 21 makes the problem worse. These colleges and universities say that allowing alcohol consumption legally might help cut down alcohol related deaths in colleges because banning alcohol gets people to drink more. Rules are meant to be broken. In the year 2001, of the 54,847 (72%) of all alcohol attributed deaths that involved males, 4,554 (6%) involved persons aged <21 years. Of the deaths among males, 41,202 (75%) involved men aged >35 years. Minors are not the only problem in alcohol related accidents. Countries that have their drinking age set 18 do not seem to have these problems. Conclusion: True, numbers have decreased in alcohol related instances since 1984, but I think that it is more of an overall awareness in that drunk driving is bad. Example I being the age of 22 has had the idea of not drinking and driving drilled into my head so many times that I know it is wrong to do so. You being a minor, you know the dangers of drinking and driving since you are in this debate. Just think, it took organizations like the Mothers Against Drunk Driving to get the government to change. While today, we hear about drunk driving everywhere just to remind us as to what we seemed to not know before 1984. This does not mean that minors should not drink. Minors should be allowed to drink for our generation is more aware of the dangers of drunk driving than the people who are above the age of 35. references: http://www.cdc.gov... http://cognac.com... http://www.misconceptionjunction.com... http://health.yahoo.net...
Resolved: The national drinking age should be lowered to 18

con: Contention 1: Alcohol is harmful to the development of the human brain. The human brain doesn't stop developing until the early 20s at the earliest. If 18 year old adolescents are allowed to drink it can prove harmful to their development, both physically and mentally. [1] Contention 2: The government just changed the age to 21 in 1984 The government as recently as 1987 proposed a bill opposite to this one. [2] Before a national regulation was set in place states had freedom to change the age as they deemed fit. Contention 3: Teens are not able to handle the responsibility of Mood altering substances. Mood altering substances are defined as those drugs which alter sensation, mood, consciousness or other psychological or behavioral functions. [3] Among college students, alcohol is a contributing factor to, 17000 deaths, 500,000 injuries, 600,000 physical assaults, and 70,000 sexual assaults. [4] Contention 4: Alcohol related deaths are steadily decreasing since the introduction of the national drinking age being put into place in 1987. In 1987 there were 2,4094 driving deaths related to alcohol, in 2008 1,3846. [5] That is a very significant number when before the law was put in place the number hovered around 2,500 annually. One can easily draw the conclusion that by putting the minimum drinking age law in place drunk driving fatalities have decreased. Conclusion Allowing people 18 and older to drink would pose a threat not only to those adolescents who would choose to drink, but also cold pose a threat to those driving or innocent students on college campuses. Deaths due to alcohol have decreased since the minimum drinking age has been put in place. sources [1] . http://www.fcs.uga.edu... [2] . http://www.abc.virginia.gov... [3 ]. http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org... [4] . http://www.csmonitor.com... [5] . http://www.alcoholalert.com...
Convert me to Christianity

In this debate PRO shall take the side of Christianity and, using evidence and/or logic, shall attempt to construct a convincing case to convert CON to the doctrine of Christianity. CON shall attempt to point out flaws in PRO's arguments. Note that it is not required that PRO actually converts CON, rather that after all things are considered that PRO has made a case for conversion that has survived CON's attacks. As PRO is making the case in the affirmative the burden of proof falls upon him. The onus is not on CON to undermine the validity of Christian belief, simply to undermine PRO's case for conversion. Christianity: Any belief, supported by a recognised Church either historical or cotemporary that claims a Monotheistic position and claims that Christ is the son of God and/or God and/or Gods paramount Prophet and whose nature and/or teachings serve as the only route to salvation. (This is the broadest possible sensible defintion that hopefully includes as many Christian groups as possible whilst also excluding Islam, Krishna-Christ syncretism and Voodou).
I will not break a rule.

0. This debate poses off of another debate that was quite comical to me. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. (End Foundation Rules) 1. My opponent cannot use any of the following words in a rule: I me my you your the a an is am was were be being been can cannot not must rule rules he she her his it and but or round PRO CON opponent wjmelements oppose other any word word appear use words phrase discriminate to if then or and 2. CON must use proper spelling and grammar. 3. CON cannot restrict PRO's ability to speak English.
I will not break a rule.

(Rule 4 interjection: bard- 1 a: a tribal poet-singer skilled in composing and reciting verses on heroes and their deeds . http://mw1.m-w.com...[1] Therefore, no norms bid for bard of my opponent's norms. ) 1. CON can not post a contraction. 2. CON can not post words from this list: norms satisfaction 3. CON has lost and has no opinion on affirmative action. (Rule 4 interjection: I assert that I have not broken a rule and so have won.
I will not break a rule.

(Rule 4 Interjection: I am following the rules from R1 because they only apply to CON.) 1. CON cannot and shall not in the future write rules that contain words with more syllables than one. 2. CON cannot and shall not in the future write rules that contain the following words: should at will by done 3. On debate.org, wjmelements has lots of fun.
Plants Are Superior Organisms To Humans

As I stated earlier, a tragedy befell some friends of mine. They were in an auto accident, and two of them didn't make it. because of this, I have run out of steam, and so I will not be making any new arguments on my side of the debate. I will just summarize my side of the debate. Both people and plants need sunlight to survive. If the sun were to disappear, People and plants would die off by the millions. Both plants and people need the sun. People and animals eat plants. The only way plants can "Eat" In a very loose sense of the term is if the organism is already dead, and there is plant life nearby. People can also survive in as many places as plants. So naturally people are on top of the food chain. People aren't solely dependent on plants for everything. People can eat fish, which eat algae, which is photosynthetic and not plant life. Not all medicine and clothing comes from plants either. I had a fairly good time debating. I wished this didn't have to end on this way with what happened, but that's just how the cookie crumbles. On to you now, Magicain'treal. Good luck and good sportsmanship.
Plants Are Superior Organisms To Humans

*There are no round rules other than the above rule. ResolutionPlants are superior organisms to humans. ProHas the Burden of Proof and 3 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM the resolution that plants are superior organisms to humans. ConHas also 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE the resolution that plants are superior organisms to humans. *Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree. Otherwise. .. *Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument. Definitionsplants - any organism that belongs to Kingdom Plantae. . http://www.biology-online.org...superior - greater in degree. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...organisms - living things that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. . http://www.biology-online.org...humans - bipedal primates belonging to the genus Homo, especially Homo sapiens. . http://www.biology-online.org...homo sapiens - the species group of bipedal hominins characterized by having higher and vertical forehead, brain volume of about 1,400 cc, smaller teeth and jaw, and prominent chin relative to earlier hominins. . http://www.biology-online.org...May the better argument win!
Inclusion in Education

Let me please establish a couple points about my own life, as to dispel any feelings my opponent may have as to my own "ignorance". Firstly, without writing my entire life story, I'd like to say that I come from a family in which 3 out of 6 children have what is known as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Before they were officially adopted, my family worked as an emergency foster care provider, meaning that I had (and continue to have) regular contact with a number of individuals with mental health issues, including varying degrees of autism. If there is anything I have to bring to the table when it comes to mental health issues, the first thing I would have to say would be "experience". I find it rather peculiar that with such experience, I would be called "ignorant". Secondly, I'd like to also establish that I am currently studying special needs education as a result of my family background, which I believe can speak volumes to my understanding and affiliation in this particular realm of debate. In any case, I must inform my opponent that his classroom likely wasn't properly maintained. It is my view that instability in a classroom is not due to the students' mental health issues, but rather the teacher's failure to manage his class. In any case, a properly included classroom should not divide the teacher's attention. Please refer to this caricature that illustrates my following argument: . http://i335.photobucket.com... As you can see, the man is shoveling the stairs instead of just the ramp, making the job twice as long and forcing some of the students who require the wheelchair ramp to wait. But why not shovel the ramp instead? Everyone can use it, right? The idea is the same here! Let's say that you have a severely autistic child who responds very well to art. Why not find ways to teach the entire lesson using art? Everyone can profit from it that way!
Inclusion in Education

Let me start off by saying your way of thinking is a good one however also an ignorant one (no offence at all intended). I went to a school where those special needs kids were integrated into our class rooms and personally know two, one had a very severe case of autism and the other was mentally challenged; both were integrated into regular class room. Let me start with as story. one time while we were writing a test the mentally challenged kid got up and put another child in to a head lock and had to be broken up by other students so that is one con as they are unstable and unpredictable. However that is not the main reason why i think they should not be, The kid with severe autism (god bless him for he was an amazing person) got so much of the teachers attention and resources that it takes away from the other kids learning, other kids who had the potential to one day be doctor and lawyers and anything else and because of that they struggled and continued to struggle so that is why im against it. I believe that those special needs kids should be interacting with other kids but it should be off on his own school schedule with their own personal special needs teacher
Inclusion in Education

As this is my first debate on this site, I please forgive me for any structural flaws in this debate, as I am not actually familiar with many of the traditional competitive debating terms. In any case, the first round shall be acceptance only. To simplify things, I shall simply state that as Pro, I shall be arguing for the inclusion of children with special educational needs in regular classrooms, whereas Con will be arguing against this proposition. I hope to keep things light, an as such there is currently a 2,000 character limit. I hope this is sufficient. Good luck!
Inclusion in Education

Well i believe being unpredictable has a great deal to deal with inclusion because if a kid is unpredictable and that unpredictability has proven to be unsafe for other children as it was in my classroom then the child should not be included. I would also like to point out that these children do have limits in their mental ability and with these limits varying case to case the class could be on multiplication but the teacher may have to go back to the child with a disability and still go through simple addition with him. there is such a thing as too easy, when children are not challenged they get bored and do not learn Now i would like to propose a compromise because as much as i am debating this topic i am also agreeing with both sides Nothing you have said is wrong but i think the best solution would be a case to case assessment of the child maybe do a couple of scoring tests on the childs behaviors and knowledge and see if he is fit to be included in a regular class room another solution is to include them with the class but have a separate teacher who is more specialized in dealing with special children look after them Unfortunately your dyslexia link was not working so I did not get the chance to read through it
Inclusion in Education

I never took any offense from any comment that was made. However, I will state that I am not "IGNORing" anything, and should my opponent feel that I have not sufficiently addressed one of his points, I invite him to restate them. The character limit often makes it hard to address all points, in any case."... unpredictable occurrence..."While this strays from the topic of inclusion, as someone who has been helping people with mental illnesses all his life (again, INCLUDING autism), while you can't always predict what's going to happen, you can absolutely be prepared for it."... tends to act out on a lot more occasions than other children the teacher must now focus her attention on that student and ignore the others""Sometimes students who are having difficulty with learning mask their embarrassment by using inappropriate behaviour." [1] Should a teacher unmask such behaviour and sole the student's problems, oftentimes behaviour issues can be erased. I DO NOT claim that this is always the case, but in an included classroom, at the very least these children are given the chance they deserve, in the place of pushing them to the side simply due to misbehaviour. "... the people in the wheelchair now need to wait for other kids to walk up the ramp leaving them behind" Does my opponent truly believe that should a teacher provide an easier way to teach things that everyone will flock to it and those for whom it was intended will suffer? Perhaps to better illustrate the point I was making, I will refer to a guide for teachers for dyslexic students, in which it notes strategies that can be used for an entire classroom, such as simply "Us[ing] different colour chalks for each line if there is a lot of written information"[2] I might suggest that my opponent read through the entire guide, as it provides a number of tips that would generally be used in an included classroom.[1] http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca...[2] http://www.dyslexia.com...;
Inclusion in Education

First I want to deeply apologize ignorant was not the right word to use at all and was not what I meant. What i did mean is that you were not seing all the possible out comes of this situation. I really hope you were not offended as that was not my intent simply a poor choice of words. I would also like to point out that the classrooms were not poorly maintained the mentally challenged child always had a supervisor watching over him what he did was an unpredictable occurrence which is entirely possible for someone of that mental state to do. In any case just because a properly included classroom should not divide the teachers attention does not mean it will not. If a teacher has to teach a lesson to everyone and then teach it again to a student who does not understand because of his disability this takes a lot of time that could be used on the other students who understand it properly and just need a little bit of help however the teacher only has so much time she can spend on one topic Or even simply with a child who has a disability and tends to act out on a lot more occasions than other children the teacher must now focus her attention on that student and ignore the others as for that picture you showed i do not believes it portrays this situation very well because that situation is when everything is at a stand still. Say the stairs and the wheelchair ramp were free of any snow and the kids could only pick one mode up yet everyone decides to use the wheelchair ramp, the people in the wheelchair now need to wait for other kids to walk up the ramp leaving them behind or the kids let the kid in the wheelchair go up first stopping their progression up the ramp. just on a side note when i said ignorant the word to me simply means you are IGNORing something hence the word IGNORant, it was not a shot at you experience in the field or at your inteligence which every seems to think when this word comes out but once again i thin you took offence and i apologize
fighting should be banned from the NHL

In discussing why the NHL had introduced a rule this season requiring players to keep their helmets on during fights, Healy explained the roots of the rule change trace back to the 2009 death of Don Sanderson, who suffered a head injury in a fight in senior hockey and never recovered. Healy: "Don Sanderson" hit his head on the ice, no helmet and he died. And if that happens in this game, the National Hockey League, fighting will be gone from the game." Simpson: "I guess you ask, Glenn, why does that (the death of a player) need to happen for that (the elimination of fighting) to happen?" It"s a great question. Whatever your position on fighting, it"s safe to assume that we can all agree that fighting to the death"even an accidental death"is an undesirable outcome. Right? We"re good with that? Death in hockey is bad.
Abortion- Lets talk about it

In response to Plumbergirls123 comments. #1 you said that you would have an abortion due to over population Response #1 If you add up the land area of California Texas and Alaska, 3 states in the USA (which is not even the biggest country in the world) out of 50 you could give every single person in the world over 1 acre of land. #2 You said its the woman's body, and therefor her choice. You also said it is to prevent the birth of a child. Response #2 I am not arguing about weather if it's her choice or not. Abortion has been around for hundreds, thousands of years. Woman have already been making the choice of having an abortion for a very long time. All i am saying is that before, it was seen as shameful an abomination. Now it seems to be a subject or action that many people are ok with. If we can all agree that the birth of a baby is LIFE. Than ending that life can only mean death. If you are so eager to end the a life, and cause death. Than it worries me, concerns me, sickens me the path society is taking now a days. I just want to open the eyes of everyone who reads this. If you can agree with everything I stated. Than an abortion brings nothing but death, since it is ending life. If so many people are so readily to accept this form of death", and make it a law. What other laws will they be willing to pass, when the life of a person is at stake? Will in the future, a mother be able to kill her child of 7 years old, because she can't afford it, because she needs to eat and doesn't have enough for her children? Or maybe he's to disobedient and causes her to much stress. It is her life her choice. Just think about IT.
Abortion- Lets talk about it

true. My hope is a Pro-abortion or Pro-choice can comment something to continue this debate. If pro-Abortion please read what was in-putted and comment. Because if all viewers agree that an abortion is basically only done to terminate a life, that i guess its safe to say that as society, our morals are changing. Society is shifting toward a "Choice", and some weird sense of freedom, and forgetting that as humans we are called to protect one another, as this is the only way we will and we have survived. If we can all agree that abortion is done to end a life, and you believe that it's morally right that woman can dispose of a future child like it was nothing. Than society will probably more readily accept any excuse to end a life in the future. Does anybody else agree or disagree that our society's view on the importance of life is fading?
Abortion- Lets talk about it

I asked the question because unless anybody comments a validly diff answer, whatever the reason, it is to "end" or if that is to strong of word, prevent the birth of a child. it prevents life. So if you're pro-abortion, and can come up with a diff reason to why somebody has an abortion can we all agree it is prevent, terminate, the coming forth of another human being? If this is the case, than according to DDO 52% of Americans agree in Abortion. The prevention of pro-creation of life. Does anybody care to disagree?
Acknowledging Black Peoples significantly lower racial intelligence standards isn't racist

You're single handedly the most deplorable and degrade insignificant insolant troll on the face on the internet. You're just as unintelligent as those blacks who's IQ on their peak friend is as good as a mental retard."acceptance only (no arguments)" you know when that is specified that MEANS ACCEPTANCE ONLY NO ARGUMENTS AND I'M REPORTING YOU ASKING FO YOUR BAN!