BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
100 debate challenge 6: Yhis house would raise the legal driving age to 18

Mobility- Kids 16 and 17 year olds often tmes have to be able o get around. Not every area has a good public transportation system and the simple fact of the matter is there are situations when an older teenager has to take care of his sick or dieing parents and they are depending on him to be able to go get them medicine and even drive them to the hospital should the worst happen. If you raised the legal driving age to 18 this woudn't be possible. I'd say that raising the driving age for the majority of kids but allow hardship licenses for similar situations to what, I suggested would be a better alternative than just all willy nilly raising the age everyone can drive. http://www.jrf.org.uk... "I believe that raising the legal driving age to 18 years old can really help teenagers focus with school and other important classes, jobs, etc. As a teen, you take on more responsibilities, and driving can get in the way." On the contrary as my ource states lack of transportation can prevent kids rom going to school. Here is what the sam article says: "In rural areas, most sixth forms and further education colleges are located in main towns so that staying on in post-16 education often means having to travel further afield; 40 per cent of 15- to 16-year-olds say that transport issues played a part in their decisions about post-16 education." As you can see, not being able to drive at least in rural areas will actually prevent kids from attending school and if the are in a suburban area having to bike and walk everywhere will also severely cut into their study time.
100 debate challenge 6: Yhis house would raise the legal driving age to 18

I believe that raising the legal driving age to 18 years old can really help teenagers focus with school and other important classes, jobs, etc. As a teen, you take on more responsibilities, and driving can get in the way. Some teens decide to start college early, as my sister did, and that can cause a huge impact on one's schedule. Teenagers should be focusing on schoolwork, projects, chores, part time jobs (If they choose to get one), etc., and not going out to parties, driving to friend's house, or any activities that could possibly distract them. School should always come first. Please excuse any mistakes, debate is a new activity and I am still learning the guidelines and tips for debating. I look forward to your response and ideas.
Twitter or Facebook

"Facebook is a website over-populated by idiots. " Woah there man. You can't insult something like that. There are some respectable and decent people there. What if your dad made a Facebook. Would you call him an idiot? "Facebook has security problems and can affect someone's internet safety." Twitter also has a history of this. Not just Facebook, but also Twitter. Twitter had a serious hacking problem. (1) (1) http://money.cnn.com...
The Democrats Victory in the House spells the end of the evil clown Trump

Trump is crooked and more than that he is spoiled everythng he has was handed to him his dad gave him 400 million dollars he isnt self made at all, He is a con man, And narissitic. He is so full of hmself, He is guiilty of collusion, Thats why he is so angry about the meuller probe meuller has the evidence, If the democrats can protect him, Trump will snap, Start to make even worse mistakes and we can jail him.
The Democrats Victory in the House spells the end of the evil clown Trump

When it comes to US President Donald J. Trump, You have to rake in account his pure determination and sheer will power to succeed what he overall believes what´s best for the United States and its people. Using the phrase ¨evil clown¨ is determinately misleading as it does not pertain to what he´s actually been since taking office in January of 2017. For my first round of this debate I will simply state that the unemployment rate has dropped significantly since he and the Republicans took their respective roles of Government in 2017. Now, I´m not saying Trump is a saint, By all means he´s defiantly NOT that but we can´t just ignore his success as President because we hate him and he does´t fit your ideology, You have to look at the facts and statistics of the United States in recent years to get a much more pure understanding of how he actually is.
The Democrats Victory in the House spells the end of the evil clown Trump

This nation is so divided, It was beofre and then came trump. An evil carnival barker much like P T BARNUM or the wizard of oz, He is a confidence trickster playing on the fears of feeble minded victims. Also he is a liar a theif and a traitor, It would be unpatriotic not to take him down, Whcih is why many decent Republicans voted Democrat, Even though they see Democrats as nit wits, Which many if not most are. . But unlike republicans these are nit wits that at least have a spine and are willing to fight a greater evil. . Folks an enemy of your enemy is your friend. . We get rid of Trump get some honest people in Government and then deal with the Democrats.
The story of Noah's Ark most likely happend

Sorry man.. I messed up. I did not look to see if you were pro or con and assumed by the title you were pro. I can in no way defend Noah's ark without saying God's magic did it. It is not logical to believe the story as a literal interpretation of our natural history.. it cannot be done. It does us no favors to assume otherwise! Anyways.. I apologize for ruining this debate I recommend you start a new debate so I do not waste your time! I also recommend you check out my debate in the past where I crushed the Noah's Ark story!
The story of Noah's Ark most likely happend

Thank you for excepting. Now lets get on to the debate. 1. The ark was simply not large enough. The book of Genesis clearly states that Noah was commanded to built an ark of gopher wood, smeared inside and out with pitch, with three decks and internal compartments; it will be 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft); it will have a roof "finished to a cubit upward", and an entrance on the side. That is not enough room to fit every animal on this boat. 2. None of the sea life would have survived the great flood. There would be salt water mixing with fresh, Ph levels would be crazy, and sea pressure would kill most life in the ocean. 3.There scientifically had to be more than two of each species or else there would be server genetic defects. There has to be at least 50 of one species to hold a stable population. 4. There would be no food for the animals once they got off. The herbivores would have no vegetation to eat and the carnivores could not eat anything either. If they did, an entire species would go extinct. references: ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 279. Jump up ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 280-282. ^ Jump up to: a b Gooder 2005, p. 38. ^ Jump up to: a b Knight 1990, p. 175-176. Jump up ^ Kessler & Deurloo 2004, p. 81. Jump up ^ Bandstra 2009, p. 61, 62. Jump up ^ Bottero (2001:21"22) Jump up ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 282. Jump up ^ McKeown 2008, p. 55. Jump up ^ Avigdor Nebenzahl, Tiku Bachodesh Shofer: Thoughts for Rosh Hashanah, Feldheim Publishers, 1997, p.208 Noah's Ark found? Not so fast Latest Ark finding is a fake Flood of claims for 'Noah's Ark' Dictionary of the Bible Wright, George Henry Bateson. Was Israel ever in Egypt? London: Williams & Norgate, 1895.
The story of Noah's Ark most likely happend

Due to the fact that you are atheism and probably do not believe in Noah's ark. I'm curious as to what arguments you will be using to help me understand the reality of Noah's ark. If you want to take this seriously and do your research to help facilitate a proper debate. I will be more than obliged to entertain you with my arguments against Noah's ark being a part of our natural history! I accept your challenge.. lets see what you got!
Time travel could not be possible cause of the Grandfather paradox among other problems.

My opponent sates: "But theirs still other problems with time travel like if their is alternate realities, then which do you go back to if you travel foward in time after having changed history." The one you were currently existing in. "Or If you introduce something from the future into the past and it in turn ends up KILLING EVERYONE ON EARTH. Would you then die?" Well if it kills every one on earth, and I am on the earth then of course i'll die. "This reasons and more are why time travel couldn't be possible since itll alow you to kill yourself in one reality if you believe in alternate realities. yet live in an other." Ok. i don't really understand your argument. If i was trying to run a red light there are two possibilities that could happen. i would safely make it or i will die in a car accident. the two different realties that would come of this would be 1 where I'm alive, and another where i'm dead. time travel is wold be myself from a different reality effecting another, well, i hope you votes CON because i have proven a type solution to the grandfather paradox.
Time travel could not be possible cause of the Grandfather paradox among other problems.

I guess so Josh. But theirs still other problems with time travel like if their is alternate realities, then which do you go back to if you travel foward in time after having changed history. Or If you introduce something from the future into the past and it in turn ends up KILLING EVERYONE ON EARTH. Would you then die? No seriously I just thought of that one right now holy sh! t lol. This reasons and more are why time travel couldn't be possible since itll alow you to kill yourself in one reality if you believe in alternate realities. yet live in an other. How about if you(2008 5:30pm) go back in time to(1988) buy gum come back to the future(2008 5:35pm) go back in time (3 mins) wait for your past self and kill him at (5:35pm). wont that mean you killed your past/future self? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
Time travel could not be possible cause of the Grandfather paradox among other problems.

My opponent says: "That's all assuming that the person reading this article believes in alternate realities." Well is not the grandfather Paradox assuming there is only one Reality? If i travel back in time and eat at a restaurant, or buy a pack of gum, is it the same reality before i time travel? No, any changes i make to the past makes a new reality. Besides we are faced with the possibility of new realities every day. Do I go to the movies or not? Do I debate this topic or not? Our choices dictate what reality we will experience, but different realties could exist. There are multiply realities, but we only perceive our own. in addition, the paradox uses normal logic to explain for a very illogical situation, does it not?
Time travel could not be possible cause of the Grandfather paradox among other problems.

Suppose my grandfather has a son who is my father, and my father has a son who is me. We'll call this Reality A. Now if i travel back in time and meet my grandfather before he has had a child, i would be alive before my father would exist . Since this does no fit with Reality A, We'll call this Reality B. So we can assume that actions taken in Reality B will not affect Reality A Now if i don't kill my grandfather, we can presume that i will be able to witness my fathers birth, and then mine. If i did nothing and just observed there will be eventually two of me in the world. And then i would witness myself travel back in time. And he would witness my birth a third time, this process could continue for ever. Now, if i do kill my grandfather, i would not disappear. i would merely watch the world, and never see my fathers birth, or mine. And there would be no additional me's. I hope this is clear, if not sorry.
Drug Testing

Well it seems that we both have similar thoughts but going to the same destination on different views. Animals aren't meant to be "used". Even though there are many more animals out there then humans. Drug testing on animals should be taken as unethical as human testing. Thomas Hartung from Johns Hopkins University states, "that we are not a 70 kg rat." Meaning there are many similarities like the bodily functions but the side effects could be completely different from human to animal. Another thing is that the dosage that is lethal to an animal will most likely not be lethal to a human. ProCon.org helps my stand on how there are already corrupted testers on humans who is going to stop people from overdosing a rat with the drug they are testing. Peta.org states, "Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country." There are already enough animals being used for other research why must we put millions of more animals into drug testing. Not only is there the problem with the animal being used for research on a certain drug but what about those who are against animal testing? How don't we know that once we start testing drugs on animals people who are against animal testing wont use that drug. Then there goes a lot of research for those who don't want to use it. We have rights just like animals should as well. A major religious problem with many is that we are killing many animals and we are not using the body to the fullest. Mainly because the drug is all over the animal that it may not even be safe to eat anymore. So drug testing should stop and really people just need to toughen it up and let the immune system fight off the disease for them.
Drug Testing

Testing on humans bring a lot of negative attention to clinical trials. The unethical aspects of testing on humans are, well, unethical, and therefore make the trials themselves look bad. What about testing on animals? Alzheimer Europe talks a little about animal testing, saying that testing on animals is sufficiently similar to testing on humans. This allows for testing of drugs that may be of a higher dosage or that pose a more threatening effect. The US Department of Health & Human Services says a little about clinical testing on inmates. This idea takes individuals that are seen as menaces to society, and undergo procedures on them that is seen as unethical. This poses a newer resolution to even animal testing, perhaps.
Drug Testing

Well I understand that many organizations try to help those in the trials and keep them as healthy as they can. But they cant stop those who are hardheaded and don't fully want to understand what they are putting themselves into. Many will die from these kinds of trials. There should be trials on how to replicate the bodily functions. This can be helpful so it can reduce the amount of people used for drug trials. One of the most known cases in drug testing is the trial of Henrietta Lacks. Lacks at the time was dying from cervical cancer. During her stay at the hospital the doctors snipped some tissue from her cancerous tissue. There are many controversial topics about this trial. But as the organizations were making money from Lacks without her even knowing should be considered an act of wrongness. Her family after she died didn't even know about her trial until twenty years after she died. The organizations gained millions of dollars from the research they did with Lack's tissue. As it turns out her family never got anything. Much of the family needed health care and even then they were not given it. My point here is that is it right for people to do tests on people even though they are not aware of it. The organizations in America may have drug tests locked down but for those out side of America being tested on. Like during the World Wars many drugs were tested on people. Like the Germans conducted many trials of innocent people should the findings be credited to the people or to those who conducted the experiments. Those who contributed to the findings of something major should they be given money or at least credit. Think of it as a movie because in the credits they give credit to the main actor to the actor that just popped in screen for two minutes. Just as those who volunteer should they be given anything or should they just be brushed aside?
Drug Testing

Of course, with any experiment there is a risk. Even with professional surgeons or doctors, there is a possibility of a surgery or procedure going wrong or something bad happening. Of course, when someone is incorrectly briefed about a procedure, they could be signing up for something that they misunderstood. This can be prevented through a thorough evaluation of the patient and a mandatory recollection of what the patient is abut to agree to. The National Cancer Institute explains that informed consent is the process in which the patient is briefed with important facts about the clinical trial that they may OR may not agree to. I have used a similar point before, but for the sake of the argument, I say this again because of the level of self-awareness that must be present when agreeing to a drug test of a serious caliber. If a serious, potentially high-risk procedure is being considered, it would take someone of some sort of education to accept the test. As an extended protection of a person's rights, NCI explains that national as well as international policies and regulations have been developed to ensure that the trials being conducted are done so to follow strict scientific and ethical principles. This can translate to the education and awareness of the patient. Hopefully the patient would not go to for a clinical trial and not know what it is that is going to be tested on them. NCI gives the information that many organizations such as (NCI) the National Institute of Health, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veteran Affairs all sponsor and conduct clinical trials. These organizations are all very dependable and respectable programs that serve to better the population. Clinical Trial organizations like these would not want to put their clients in harm's way, but rather to protect and help them.
Drug Testing

But for those who haven't given their consent to the research yet they are still being tested on who is to be blamed, honored and paid? When people sometimes hear what they are being tested for they wont fully understand the big words are the concepts that only people who went to school would know. Many of the people that volunteer do it for some quick money and maybe they're going in without the full knowledge that they are suppose to. Yeah the people overseeing the trials my given the knowledge by verbal or document sources. But who really knows if the person was even paying attention during the briefing. Is clinical trials a job or is it an act to further our knowledge about the drug. Volunteering is the act of doing something for nothing or without pay. Or is putting the life of others in risk a job because people who "volunteer" get paid anywhere from 100 to 300 each trial. Like that is good pay for something done once but often then not they patient has to come in more then once. Each time the risks may be higher with more and more chances of side affects. A story in wisebread.com talked to friends doing a clinical trial for extra money during school. And during the trial they were not allowed to talk to anyone and both of them had major head aches and were throwing up. should there even be pay for those who want to better our knowledge. Because you even said that these trials are meant to help the people with great illness. Should those who have a greater risk of dying be paid more then those who are doing a less likely chance of dying trial? Is science a greater concept then life that we have to pay those who may dye. Or should the family be paid? If the family is to be paid then the money given should be greater to help benefit the whole. As it stand according to mercola.com only 22 out of 2,000 families are paid abroad and the people in America are only paid per trail.
Drug Testing

Death caused by drug testing can be blamed on both sides of the test. A tester can easily be blamed for the death of a patient, because he/she conducted the test. The patient has a say in things, as well. Obviously some testers may false-inform a patient about the tests' credibility, but that is in some occasions. Formal clinical testing companies require strict eligibility factors before performing the tests. The idea behind a clinical trial is to enhance a patients life conditions, not make them worse, and there is no intent of murder or death by the tester or test itself. ClinicalTrials.gov explains that one reason for clinical drug trials is to improve the "comfort and equality" in life of those who suffer from a chronic illness or condition. An actual clinical testing company has nothing but good intentions when conducting trials on patients ClinicalTrials.gov supports the idea that patients have a say in whether or not the test is conducted, because it says that a patient is given information on the trial that helps if that individual still would want the trial to continue. The patient has the right to go through with the trial or not.
Drug Testing

Side affects are different for everyone. One may experience headaches while an other person can take the same drug and experience muscle twitches. No same drug can have the exact same side affect for different people. They may all have similar immediate effects but the longer it is carried out the more side effects that may be seen. If a patient dies from these trials should the company that ran the research be charged with murder? Abroad many trials occur there instead of in America many because the countries don't want to acknowledge that their people may die. So for that reason much research happens in India or in Africa because they cant be charged with murder. According to the Bing dictionary murder is "The crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense." Now you may say that if someone dies because of a trial it is because the past conditions the person was in. But if that was not the case who is to blame? The research is being conducted deliberately to learn more about a certain drug. So therefore should it be a crime because there is no reason for self defense other then to fight of the infection. In estimate over 100-500 patients die from clinical trials. The people doing the trials should be held responsible for these people who have lost their lives trying to advance our medicine. Mercola.com states that "India is a popular place for drug clinical trials. More then 2,000 Indians have died in trials." The people the patients are leaving behind have no way to make money any more and they may soon be in poverty. So I say that the companies performing the trials should at least help those families that lost someone because of them. Or in extreme cases they should be held with murder at most.
Drug Testing

In your argument, you proposed the possibility that the patient may or may not survive from the given treatment. You also said that drug testing could leave a patient with permanent physical damage, that drug testing is unethical, and that there are corrupted testers. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics explains that a person involved with clinical drug testing plays an active role in their own health care. This benefits the individual because they get to make their own decisions with their health care and everything that surrounds that situation. The UIHC states that a patient of drug testing not only helps themselves, but helps people in the present and in the future. Knowledge excavated from drug testing allows for scientists to create newer medicines that would help with the specific condition. The UIHC explains that through drug testing, a lesser number of side effects may be observed through the patient. The advanced drugs being tested are created for a better purpose in mind. This means that scientists look at what other drugs lack and make a better drug, with less side effects.