BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Age of Consent in the United States should be lowered to 13 years of age.

Alright, this is the first debate I have started, so forgive me if it's not constructed well. Inherency : The age of consent in the United States is determined by individual states, and are as follows [1]: Age of consent 16 years: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia Age of consent 17 years: Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Texas Age of consent 18 years: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. The "age of consent" will be defined as: the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent of consenting to sexual acts [2]. My arguments will be simply this: 1) In humans, mature sexual desire usually begins to appear with the onset of puberty, beginning at between ages 10 and 15 [3]. 2) Adolescent children are competent enough to decide on whether or not to agree to consensual sex between an adult. 3) True love can exist between an adult and an adolescent. 4) Those punished for statutory rape had consensual sex with their partner, unknowing of their age. 5) The world is grossly underpopulated, so having more babies is good [4]. 6) Underpopulation threatens financial systems, which is bad [5]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.abortiontv.com... [5] http://www.freerepublic.com... Looking forward to the debate. Also, can we not argue the definition please?
Cheerleading is a sport

I apologise my computer broke so I was unable to post.The truth is, there really isn"t a solid definition of "official" sport. When necessary, the office of Civil Rights makes this determination on a case by case basis. The Women"s Sports Foundation has narrowed the field down of what is considered a sport to these elements that are commonly agreed upon to define a sport: " It must be a physical activity which involves propelling a mass through space or overcoming the resistance of mass. (Stunting" check)! " "Contesting" or competing against/with an opponent is required (Competition" check)! " It must be governed by rules that explicitly define the time, space, and purpose of the contest and the conditions under which a winner is declared. (Time limit, mat size, score sheets" check, check, check)! " Acknowledgement that the primary purpose of the competition is a comparison of the relative skills of the participants. (You know those competitions on ESPN? Those are national championships" check)! For an activity to truly be considered a sport, it must involve competition against others. In competitive cheerleading, squads compete against each other in a head-to-head fashion and are evaluated according to a standardized set of rules. This point is the real bone of contention when it comes to questions about cheerleading as a sport. Many squads still primarily exist to support other sports teams. Moreover, there is no one overarching governing body or set of rules for the sport of cheerleading; instead there are several independent organizations that sponsor their own championship tournament. Nonetheless, members of each of these organizations do compete against each other in scheduled, organized matches, just as in other sports. Cheerleading. What comes to mind when you hear this word? Is it those annoying girls on the sidelines of football games screaming cheers? Or is it the most popular girls of the school shaking pom poms? In the past, cheerleading has been referred to as a pep club to help bring up school spirit. This is not the case anymore. Cheerleading, unlike many other sports, has changed drastically since it first started out in 1880 and was (originally dominated by men). It now not only is a sport, but it is one of the most physically demanding and dangerous ones as proclaimed by sports critics and doctors. http://www.varsity.com... http://www.livestrong.com...
Cheerleading is a sport

As Pro has not provided a debate structure or any definitions, I will do so now. Definitions Cheerleading - the action or skill of a cheerleader (1) Cheerleader - a person who leads spectators in traditional or formal cheering, especially at a pep rally or athletic event (1) a person who is a member of a group (typically a group of young women) who shout out special songs or chants to encourage the team and entertain the crowd during a game in sports like American football and basketball (2) Sport - a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other (2) Note: I am American, so when I say football it is American football. I will refer to the other sport of the same name as soccer. Arguments To start, I would like to mention that cheerleading is not listed as a sport according to this definition. Also, ESPN does not count it on their list of sports (3), even though cheerleading is surely more prominent in society than sports such as rugby or horse racing, which are both listed. Cheerleading does not exist without other sports. The definition of cheerleading requires us to define cheerleader. Both definitions listed state that cheerleaders perform in a group at an athletic event, such as football or basketball. Also, think about it logically. A team cheering for a school without a sporting event is pretty useless. School spirit, woohoo! Let’s cheer for… our school? Ourselves? What would this team even be cheering for? There is no point in cheerleading if there is not another sport present, most commonly basketball and football. Cheerleading competitions are not really cheerleading. Gymnastics is a sport, and I will agree with this wholeheartedly. But when there is a competition for cheerleading alone, it is just gymnastics combined with dancing. Why should this be a sport, when gymnastics and dancing both exist and are common? Changing basketball just a little bit and calling it an entirely new sport just doesn’t make sense - it’s just a variation of basketball. Physical activity doesn’t make something a sport. There are a multitude of physical activities that are not a sport or even a part of one specific sport. Here are a couple examples that come to mind: strength training, such as push ups, curl ups, crunches, etc. and yoga or zumba and things like that. I will not deny that all of these require physical activity in some way or another, but this doesn’t automatically make them their own sport. Conclusion Cheerleading is not a sport, as seen by my points above. It is physically intensive and requires concentration, coordination, and teamwork. However, it is not a sport on its own; it merely supports other sporting events. Sources: 1 www. dictionary. com 2 www. merriam-webster. com 3 . http://espn.go.com...
Cheerleading is a sport

I would like to point out that the majority of my opponent's argument is copy/pasted directly from sources. However, the point of this is not for me to debate against written articles; it is to debate against Pro, which is not happening as it is. I will go through Pro's arguments/ copied articles rather quickly. Pro says there is no official definition of a sport. How is this true? I posted a definition of sport in my last round. If this is to be discredited, then are there any definitions of anything? Also, Pro's source goes on to state four separate points that make something a sport. This seems like an official definition to me. Next article states that there is no "overarching governing body" for cheerleading, when one of the previous requirements for a sport was "It must be governed by rules that explicitly define" multiple different aspects of the sport. It seems to me that Pro's sources and their argument all disagree with each other. Now, on to Pro's original words. Let's answer the first question. Yes, in fact, cheerleaders often are "those annoying girls on the sidelines of football games screaming cheers." This seems to be a very common perception of cheerleaders in general, at least where I'm from. Pro then states that cheerleading has changed vastly from 1880, when it supposedly started. Also, they believe that many other sports haven't changed since then. Basketball was invented in 1891, and nobody can dispute the fact that basketball has changed immensely. On another note, what does changing have to do with a sport? Wrestling has been around for millennia, yet nobody challenges its status as a sport. Also, there is no source for Pro's claim that cheerleading is one of the most dangerous sports. I would not hesitate to say that football, rugby, and wrestling are all more dangerous and physically intensive. This concludes my rebuttal of all of Pro's arguments. I have no need to add more points as Pro didn't acknowledge any of my arguments from last round. Thanks for reading.
Animals should not be kept in cages

First of all I never said that all animals are to be free. Never did those words appear in this debate. I simply said that animals don't need to be in cages. Sheep are not kept in cages, they are in a field where they are free to run around and are not confined to a small space like a cage. Who would be the one slaughtering the cows? Once again this has nothing to do with the topic. If you are going to get a pet/animal and keep them in a cage then what is the point of having an animal in the first place? By your logic, if humans are animals and you say animals need to be kept in cages then you are basically saying we all need to be in cages and that is beyond the point of this debate. As I stated in the beginning cages are bad for these reasons: they are harmful, restrictive and are used for punishment. The resolution still stands.
Animals should not be kept in cages

Wow, dude I can see your totally butt hurt but what ever Alright m8 lets duke this out one more time. Ok search up in google "Ran over dogs" With a hamster search up "crushed my hamster" Put the pieces together, people make mistakes, people do things. Plus, you ban cages. Now what? I can see the headlines now, "Baby Gets Mauled by Dog" "Kids Eyes Are At Stake" "Snakes kill dozens" "Lion kills family" "Salmonella Disease Strikes" And theoretically saying, you want all animals to be free? So that whole herd of sheep gets eaten by wolves. That whole herd of cow gets slaughtered. Whats the difference? The problem with you is that you don't understand what I am trying to say. Animals, need to be kept in cages. Humans are animals, we kill, we fight, we rape. So what? Animals are food. If you think about it, animals are our products, we made animals, we bred, and bred, and bred, until we got that cute little puppy. So who says that we can't do what we want with them? We paid, we signed papers, we paid some more. Yet, people hurt animals and that is against the law. You most likely don't adopt pets and give them homes if you do then why are you wasting your time on here when you can be saving animals? Wanna know who is a pheg u
Animals should not be kept in cages

My opponent says that people put dogs in cages to protect them. Protect them from what? That is not protecting them it is confining them. Plenty of birds have made out just fine without having to be trapped in a cage; my opponent saying that birds are not made for the outside is just silly. If they were not made for outside they would not have wings, they don"t need them to sit in a cage all day. The argument of hamsters being squished. Hamsters were not born in cages so my opponent is saying that if there are not kept in a cage that they would go extinct? I don't think so. My opponent says "who cares" if it's inhumane to keep animals in cages. So basically my opponent is saying that he doesn't care about the misery or suffering of animals being in cages? Hmmmm. You make a big assumption saying that I eat animals raised on farms, but how does that prove your point? What does a farm have to do with animals being in a cage? Just pointing out that none of my initial arguments have been refuted; therefore the resolution stands.
Animals should not be kept in cages

Wow, dude. You do realize that people put dogs in cages to protect them. Take it like this. You have a pet bird. You don't use a cage, the bird flies out of the house, the bird starves and dies out because it is not made for the outside. You can basically use this with any animal. A poor hamster isn't caged. You have a little sister, she likes running around the house, she steps on and kills the hamster. You realize that right? You logic is that it is in-humane, but who cares? You say animals shouldn't be caged yet you eat the animals raised on farms. Unless you are vegan you should be Debating this topic. Unless you care about animals you shouldn't debate this topic
Animals should not be kept in cages

The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?" ~Jeremy Bentham 1. Cages are Harmful "Wire cages are the standard in commercial breeding. Sadly, though, there is no limit to the damage wire cages can do to dogs' health. They experience joint and limb discomfort and irregular growth from standing on the wires. Their paw pads can be badly bruised or cut from the hard metal. Because wire cages aren't comfortable, dogs remain standing for longer periods of time, resulting in poor posture and stress on muscles."http://www.quotegarden.com... I think that this quote speaks for itself. It clearly says that keeping animals in cages can cause harm to them. Some can have long tem effects that can make life diffucult for them. 2. Cages are Restrictive Often times people put animals that are too big for a cage in them and they will stay there for long periods of time. Puppy mills stuff so many pups into one cage and just leave them there until they are needed. You would not want to be squished into a small cage so why shold they? 3. Cages are used as a form of Punishment "Never use the crate as a punishment. Your dog will come to fear it and refuse to enter it." http://www.humanesociety.org... I could not agree more with this statement. Using a cage as punishment is not the right way to train your animal to do things the right way. If they only associate the cage with something bad they will not want to go into a cage at all. They might even become violent when presented with on in the future. Some people would argue that using a cage is a necessary part of owning an animal, but i would disagree with that. If animals were meant to be in cages they would have been created that way.
this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

Domesticated dogs are not a new species, they are a subspecies of wolves. Hitler tried to do what you are suggesting here to produce the next advancement in evlotion, and was terrrible embarrassed when one of his blonde hair supermen lost a boxing match agaisnt a black man. The blonde haired germans were not a new species any more than my german shepherd is a new species. A wolf can produce puppies with my german shepherd and those puppies will be dogs the same as their parents, the same as the German super-men could pair with blacks and bring brown paper bag colored humans into the world who are equally human to both their parents. Your idea to breed a superman is not new. China, and Russia are probably doing this through coercive methods now, and there are many who due to their riches think they are a superiour animal to those of us who are content with what we have while it is a pttance compared to the rich and powerful. Many of these eleiists are breeding amonst themselves already, many people are steering their intellectually gifted children to marry such gifted partners. Your idea is nothing new, and it can never produce a new species. It can produce snobs who think they are better than you, but they are sitll sinners who deserve to burn in Hell the same as you and me, and they are still members of mankind the same as you and me, the same as dogs and wolves are members of wolfkind. If I agree with your argument, I'll have to confess that I am a member of the new advancement of speciation of evilution, and I'm trying to keep that a secret. (you know this is a joke, right?........but then again, really, how do you know the "speciation" has not already occured and my joke is only an attempt to keep you from seeing the truth of the advancement of my species who is leaving your species in the dust. Ok, it's been fun, but the mother ship is calling me and I have to leave you here for a couple days)
this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

there's no reason it would have had to have happened to dogs by now, speciation. humans have only been modern form for the last two hundred thousand years. look at hte different types of humans, languages, faces etc. each type of human was branching off. dogs have been bred only for a fraction of that time, so they would need much more time. bottomline, most evolution occurs on the millions of years time scale, and we're talking about a fraction of even a mere million.
this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

Hitler already tried this. China and Russia are probably doing it quietly. It would not surprise me at all if the US government is doing it behind closed doors. Nothing good comes out of this kind of thing, and it won't bring about a new species. If it could produce a new species, dogs would have turned into half-human/half dog or a doggiebear or a doggybunny or something by now because they have been bred for thousands of years selectively in search of a better animal. I'm glad my dog is still a dog. No further arguments on this end, thank you.
this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation. a new society is created. it consists of new born to 30 year olds. only the best and the brightest 500 people from society are picked. intelligence and physical attributes. they do genetic testing on the people to ensure diseases and problems indicated by genes and family history are rooted out. eighteen to thirty year olds are permitted to breed. then the population of five hundred would be permitted to expand to five thousand. then by the time it got to five thousand, the best and brightest five hundred are picked out and focused on. this method of expansion and retraction would be put on repeat. when a parent shows that it later develops a disease, that can disqualify the offspring as well. and the populations are small and large enough to not cause problems from inbreeding, or too large as to stall evolution. eventually, this would lead to speciation.
Ps3 is a better system than Xbox360

have read in many places opinions of many people that disliked the PS3 or liked the PS3 with a certain bias. I will certainly not deny that my post will be somewhat biased in itself. However, I will try my best to be as objective as possible in this delicate subject. Also, if you find that some of my info are incorrect, feel free to call me an idiot and correct me. The PS3 has caused quite a stirring over the past 2 years: from a general excitement to astonishment to disappointment. How did this happen? Let's look at what Sony did right, and what they did wrong, and every shades of gray in between. Pros: 1. Cell- 8 cores, 7 active, 1 for redundancy. Why is this good? This is excellent for the consumers. It solves a lot of defects, reducing complaints and defective systems. Sony learned something from their PS2 fiasco. But aside from its ability to warrant from damage, the Cell processor is a dedicated processor especially designed for gaming. How? Because of its 7 core architecture, Cell allows developers to designate each core to a specific task. This allow multitasking at its peak. What does this mean to games? More sparks, more people, more physics, better AI, more particles, more of everything at the same time on the same HD TV. The Cell processor undoubted sets the PS3 a bar ahead of all other consoles. 2. Blue-Ray Disk- 52 gig of space to use. No matter how you look at it, bigger space is better. More room for developers to fill. Better graphics, sounds, physics, AI, longer games, more modes, more maps, everything. A $1000 value, now yours for only $600. Play movies at high definition, games at high def. BR is very important to gaming. With a new leap in generation, came a new leap in media. Sony had always shown this: PS-CD, PS2-DVD, PS3-BD. This technology removes the limit that developers get when making a game.
Steroid users should be allowed in the Baseball Hall of Fame

Resolution: As Pro I will show why it is unjustified to deny a baseball Hall of Fame candidate a vote for induction based on that players steroid history. Con must show why it is justified for steroid users to be denied a Hall of Fame vote. This is a debate about the broader context of this issue and does not center on any one specific example. Steroids: Includes all banned substances recognized as performance enhancing drugs. (Steroids just sounds so much more controversial)National Hall of Fame: located at 25 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY 13326. http://baseballhall.org... Challenger: Please be serious, no semantics. Please make sure you can commit to finishing this debate prior to accepting. Rules: Standard debate rules apply. Round 1 for acceptance only. No new arguments in round 4. Voters: Voters are reminded that personal knowledge or opinion of the resolution prior to the debate should not play any role in voting. Votes should be based only on the arguments made in this debate. If you are unfamiliar with acceptable voting criteria, please read the following article before continuing:. http://www.debate.org...I
Plans to introduce body-imaging scanners at airports should be shelved

Ah i do enjoy this debate. Very good argument. I do agree that terroism is the object to be defended from. I would rather be protected then threatened. I do agree that we straight men would enjoy being tugged it is still a disrespectful topic. I propose that if somone rejects the strip search and chooses the full body scan they should be allowed transport deemed "safe" by the airport. If you fear terrorism then do you not think about car bombs in this country as there are in other countries? how about suicide bombers? each one is able to occur in this country. So my argument still stands.
Plans to introduce body-imaging scanners at airports should be shelved

I would like to thank Vaughn for his prompt acceptance of this debate and also for his most timely rebuttal, to which I should like to respond as follows: As a society, we must decide what is more important: the fight against terrorism and illegal drug smuggling or the delicate sensibilities of a few particularly shy people – I am sure I know which of the two is more important to me and I'm sure the voters do too. Now, with regard to objections from homosexual men: I don't see why they would feel uncomfortable about being strip-searched by a woman; indeed, being touched-up by a sexy naked girl might make some of them realise what they have been missing out on - and it may occur to some of them that they aren't actually gay at all, rather they are just seeking attention. Furthermore, most straight men would probably enjoy being "tugged" by a nude glamour model and no doubt lesbians and bi-sexual women would equally enjoy having their lady gardens searched for concealed drugs by a naked porn actress. That's why I reaffirm that plans to introduce body-scanners at airports should be shelved. Thank you.