BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teenagers and elders should not drive.

I will keep this fairly simple. In keeping with the structure, I am supposed to defend teenage driving in this section. Pro has decided to argue that all teenagers should be banned from driving. This is unreasonable for many reasons. First, pro did not say 16 year olds, he said teenagers. This includes 18 and 19 year olds, ie adults. These people often have jobs and no longer live with their parents. If pro wants to deny them driving rights, he will need to prove that there is some change that happens at the age of 20 that would somehow mean these new drivers would avoid the problems that new drivers currently face. Pro also needs to show that it is age and not inexperience that causes the increase in traffic accidents seen with new drivers. A much better solution is to look into our licensing requirements, and if they are not sufficient to weed out incompetent drivers, we can revise them. We could also install safety devices to cars driven by teenagers. These already exist for insurance companies and for drivers who have had DUIs. I have one from my insurance company in my car that can determine if I am driving too fast or stopping too abruptly. They offer this option for those who want to lower their rates. The ones for drunk drivers lock the car until you breathe into them to prove you are not drunk. It would be a simple matter to have these devices installed for a probationary period to ensure that new drivers are still being monitored in case the tests they take to get a licence fail to weed out incompetent drivers. This monitoring would have the additional benefit of encouraging the drivers to be mindful of how they drive so that they do not lose their licenses. Obviously this could create problems with shared automobiles, but the simple solution is to have the device lock the vehicle until a driving license in inserted or have a thumbpad scanner. This way, the device will be able to differentiate by who is driving the car.
Teenagers and elders should not drive.

PrefaceI have done this debate before. http://www.debate.org...It is about teenagers driversStructure 1. Pro accepts, Con's case *It has to be on teenagers2. Pro's case *has to be on teenagers, Con's second case *Has to be on the elders3. Pro's second case *has to be on elders, Con rebuts *Teenagers and elders*4. Pro rebuts *Teenagers and elders*, Con defends his case5. Pro defend his case, Con waivesDefintions will be on the second round.
Free gun rights

It's kind of pointless amendment because of the civil war, a lot of people apparently don't care about a "free state". Otherwise, the states would have seceded. the ultimate problem with giving guns to the people is that the people can get really fussy, and fussy people can make really big messes. Most american wars don't get that many casualties as the civil war, I guess Vietnam would be an exception, but I think the problem would have been reduced if certain people didn't have convenient access to guns. And if we're talking about causalities you shouldn't forget about school shootings. And the other problem is why should the government grant these rights anymore? The only thing that are a real threat to a free state is tyrannical government. And if that's the case why would the government even want to give gun rights if it means the main thing that'll be used is against them? While i do agree with you that one should have some right of self-defense, but I think there should be some limitations that should be imposed on this. Obviously the common pedestrian doesn't need to be hauling around certain kinds of assault weaponry (rpgs,explosives, artillery, machine guns, et cetera) The question is how much weaponry do you need to give people? Does it have to go all the way to guns? Why not just give everybody a batarang, it worked for batman.
The world must intervene and eliminate ISIS

IS (Islamic State) Is a horrific terrorist organisation that is responsible for numerous horrific violations of human rights that is attempting to create a theocracy in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq (as well as possibly Israel). That doesn't mean that we should eliminate them. Now I should first state that I do support the bombing of IS around Sinjar Mountain to free the Yezidi but that does not equate to us starting a war.Getting Bogged DownIn 2001 the US and UK invaded Afghanistan to kill or capture a couple of hundred Al Qaeda operatives [1]. Thirteen years and 24,500 deaths later [2] [3] we are still there with no apparent reason. In Iraq in 2003 a coalition of mainly US and British troops invaded Iraq under the false pretence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction [4]. Eight years and half a million deaths later [5] the united states was virtually forced out of Iraq by the government there [6] leaving Iraq in a state which helped lead to the current crisis. Unintended Consequences There was a time when the iron fist of the Assad regime seemed to be the worst possible situation for Syria. After the Assad regime essentially declared war its people various western countries funded and armed the rebels [7]. These rebels turned out to be the Islamic State. During an another Iraq war what might be the unintended consequences?False StateThe state of Iraq is a false state, it was created by the British during the aftermath of the first world war [8]. It has at least three main regions. The Kurds in the north who have been trying to form their own nation for hundreds of yeas [9] they were able to achieve a degree of independence under the recent Iraqi government but now they are spinning loose [10]. There is the Sunni's in the west who seem to want to become part of Syria, possibly even an Islamic Kalafate [11]. Finally there are the Shia in the south who seem to want to become part of Iran and who Iran fought a war over for eight years in the 1980's [12]. If the outside world gets involved with Iraq we could end up further destabilizing the region. [1] http://www.foreignpolicy.com... [2] http://costsofwar.org... [3] http://icasualties.org... [4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[6] http://www.aljazeera.com... [7] http://rt.com...[8] "The Middle East in the twentieth century" by Martin Sicker[9] Ozoglu, Hakan "Kurdish Notables and the Ottoman State: Evolving Identities, Competing Loyalties, and Shifting Boundaries"[10] http://time.com... [11] http://www.newstatesman.com... [12] http://www.acig.org...
The world must intervene and eliminate ISIS

IntroductionI believe that the world cannot look when a power built on insanity and massmurdering that claims that it has the authority of the whole muslim world, can be watched by the world while they appropriating natural resources, massmurdering innocent children, women and men and is starting to achieve it's ambition. To get authority of the whole muslim world. I'll argue why in this debate.IS - ISISIS or ISIS, is a terrorist organisation responsible for massmurdering of innocent children, women and men. It's a jihad group which means that if there will be a Islamic State, they would support jihads which correspond to the christian worlds crusaders. It has officially designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. That Saudi Arabia has officially designated IS to be a terrorist organisation, shows how insane they are when Saudi Arabia hasn't even officially designated Al-Qaeda to be a terrorist organisation. IS doesn't just want to hurt every innocent child, women and man that isn't sunni muslims. It do also want to hurt it's own people that doesn't obey their strict rules. IS has proclaimed a caliphate, a caliphate is an absolute monarchy state and it's ruler has the title of "caliph" and is claimed by the state to be a successor to Muhammed. It has told their people that they're gonna conquer back Andalusia - south of Spain, conquer Israel and conquer Rome. People who don't agree to them, people who have ever said anything bad about them will be executed. Right at spot, even if it's in a shop gallery, on the street, wherever. When they occupy regions, anyone not believing in their insanity, anyone that hasn't the same culture as they have, have a huge risk of being raped, tortured or killed. Why we must intervene and eliminate this insanityI have a question for my opponent; Do you believe that it was unnecessary to intervene and free the people of Nazi Germany, do you think that we should have accepted what the Nazi Party did to the people and watch when they annihilated a whole religion? I assume that your answer is NO! If we don't stop ISIS now while they don't have very stable foothold and free the people of Middle east of the threat and the subject of ISIS, we'll risk that they'll get stable foothold and then risk a war that probably will cause disastrous consequences. If we don't stop them they might try to annhiliate the jews, and then we'll have a second holocaust. We have seen, and I have proven above what they're are capable of. Letting ISIS succed is a threat to the whole west, letting ISIS succed is letting massmurdering go on in middle east. I don't think that anyone deserve this, and I don't understand how my opponent is willing to let this happend.
Call of Duty receives undue criticism among the gaming community.

Call of Duty has suffered from a lack of innovation in the past couple of years. If you look at the past few Call of Duty games they are all pretty much rehashes of the previous game, with shorter campaigns different maps and less guns. The campaigns for me are a massive problem because they are short and do not really bring anything to the table and as I have mentioned are ever shortening. However I will not go into much further detail on the mater, unless requested, due to the lack of Call of Duty players who actually play on the campaign and purchase the game for this reason. Although I will say that even fans of Call of Duty seem to dislike the campaign which is a serious problem. But back on to the topic of the lack of innovation. If you look at Call of Duty as a franchise it started with Call of Duty 1. Call of Duty 1 is clearly a clone of counter strike in my opinion. I am not even that big a CS fan myself but it clearly stole many of its ideas from the counter strike game. Anyway, despite this Call of Duty 1 was a good game for its time and at that time in 2003 the gaming community were on board with it. At this time the gaming community was unlike it is now dominated by actual gamers, today it saddens me to see gaming dominated by teenagers and pre-teens looking for some fun rather than a dedicated intellectual and community fanbase it had previously. These gamers I tend not to call gamers because they are not really gamers but tend to play one game all of the time. For me this is the epitome of Call of Duty players 10-16 year olds who are not true gamers but people who are simply there to play the games rather than those who will be passionate about their games and the community. Almost all console gamers fall into this category, and really do not seem to care about the lack of change and innovation in their games. This is one of the main reasons why gamers and real gamers have great disregard and tend to hate Call of Duty the younger fanbase who are not true fans because they are usually console gamers who are there for the purpose of playing the game rather than caring passionately about the game and supporting it and such.
Call of Duty receives undue criticism among the gaming community.

(First debate on the site, so if I muff up anything just let me know). The Call of Duty Franchise is a record-breaking series of games for all systems that has time and time again sold in large amounts. The newest entry, Call of Duty: Ghosts by InfinityWard sold one billion dollars into retail within the first week (1). Call of Duty is a easy, reflex-oriented multiplayer game. However, there is a great deal of depth within the system and gun statistics (as of MW3). The game is fair to all parties and has enough gamemodes to entertain for a while. With the Prestige system, the multiplayer doesn't lose it's luster (to me, anyway) for a long while. My argument is that the amount of criticism CoD receives is undue, and that while it is not a perfect franchise, deserves a lot more respect than most people currently give it. Con will argue that Call of Duty is somehow degrading Gaming as a whole (in a E.T. sort of way) or is uninspired to the point that it does not deserve such respect. First round for acceptance only. New points may be brought up in rounds 2 and 3, but round four is for rebuttals only. Shoot me a PM if interested. (1) http://www.eurogamer.net...
Call of Duty receives undue criticism among the gaming community.

Seeing as I posted no rules for forfeiting, I will close out by saying I firmly believe CoD is not being fairly judged. I thank you for the time you did give me, and hope to meet you again on these boards. I could try to bring up new points, but my own rules prohibit me. As such, I will simply say I quite enjoyed my first debate, and hope to have more in-depth debates in the future. Thank you all for reading.
If RainbowDash dated FlutterShy, the relationship would most likely break down due to RaindbowDash.

A few quick defintions for the unaware:RainbowDash: pony on the hit television series "My Little Pony Friendship is Magic". Also known as Dashie, Rainbow, and "best pony". "RaindbowDash" is a misspelling of her unbelievably awesome name. . http://mlp.wikia.com...Fluttershy: another pony on the same show. Also known as Flutters, the Staremaster and "Fan Favorite". . http://mlp.wikia.com...I must again preface this discussion by saying I'm no expert on the show and haven't even seen most of Season 4. But hey, ponies rock. I will be presenting evidence of four main contentions in this debate:1. Rainbow Dash is the best girlfriend ever2. Fluttershy would more likely break down the relationship, and3. A more likely scenario is that they'll stay together and the relationship won't break down, and4. The most likely scenario is that Hasbro, producers of My Little Pony, will use their executive powers to stop the relationship before it goes too farFailing this line of attack, I also intend to argue that Rainbow Dash and I (larztheloser) were made for each other and should totally hang out. When a portal to Equestria is discovered, chances are good I will be the one to ruin their relationship so that Rainbow can go out with me instead.
God is not real

Problem: If god is all-powerful, he could do anything , thus making us to not do things with free will still available because he is god. Really, If he is all powerful, he could do this with free will still available, somehow incomprehensible to us. And why doesn't god reveal himself, directly, saying "Hey, I'm god, believe in me", to everyone? Then those who reject have no reason to. Faith shouldn't be necessary.
God is not real

Counter argument: God can prevent things from nature that are under his control - but he cannot control the damage what humans do because he does not control us like puppets - he can however, lead us in the right direction so we don't mess around with dangerous things and commit bad actions. God prevents numerous health and physical related deaths so people do not have to suffer - he cannot rip the gun out of someone's hand who is trying to kill themselves - he can try and help them to change their minds with signs however. Even god agreed that people have to die - it is a part of the life cycle and if nobody ever dies, the earth would become overpopulated and everyone would be miserable. He cannot tell you directly because he will not speak to you like any ordinary person would. He would give you signs of you prayed to him - and he will give you the strength and realization that you will obtain later in life. Then you will realize the truth and finally have some closure - you need to give him more time because he does truly look out for everyone - but cannot save us from other people because he does not have control of those evil souls.
God is not real

Rebuttal: God is supposedly all-powerful. He could prevent all of this. If god knows everything that will happen, everything has a set path, and thus we have no choice. Suicide is often from issues within personal lives that could have been stopped, or mental illness. And for every two of those babies born, 1 old man/woman will die. And in major tragedies we often say one person surviving is a miracle. What of the others who had died? Are there no miracles for them? And I was a Christian, but I am not now. I truly believed everything. But then I thought. And I thought. And I came to my realization, and became an atheist. There was much planning, thinking, and praying. I asked god to give a sign because if he didn't another person would be suffering eternally. If he really existed, he would have cared enough about my existence as a human to tell me.
God is not real

(Rebuttal for your paragraph): For every three seconds when there is a dead toddler - six more babies are born. God can not save everyone - especially when people do things like OD from drugs or commit suicide by shooting themselves in the head. He protects us from partial harm and does all he can - but cannot protect you from the consequences of your decisions. He guides you to make the right choices. He reveals himself in many ways - such as answeing prayers and healing miracles. You must have not been looking for signs then - or not be confident in them becaue if you did, you would find them. And if you do not believe in god then you are not a christian. Most of the "destruction" and "violence" in the world is caused by us - humans. God cannot controll all of us like puppets in a play - he can only guide and to make the best decisions we can and help us along the way. He cannot prevent everything bad from happening. Because then we would live in a boring world where we all live forever - become overpopulated - and not learn from any mistakes we have made. Life would pretty much be meaningless.
God is not real

Allow me to start, and thank you for accepting my challenge. How could one believe in a god when, every three seconds, there is a dead toddler? Why would god save some, and kill others? Why does god not reveal himself? I was a christian for my entire life before these 3 years. And yet, never did he ever offer a sign. My dog is dead. My Grandparents are dead. I understand that they will "be taken to god's kingdom", but what of my dog? As a "soulless creature", where is he? Nonexistence? I believe that god cannot exist with all of the death and destruction in the world.
Google Chrome is more useful than Mozilla Firefox

Google Chrome is more useful than Mozilla FirefoxContention 1: Chrome has a much better overall performance than firefox. In the Peacekeeper browser performance test Google Chrome [1] scored a 2,963. In the Peacekeeper browser performance test Mozilla Firefox [2] scored a 789. This is essentially showing Google Chrome has a much better performance than Firefox, in fact Firefox pales in comparison to Chrome. Contention 2: Google Chrome beats Firefox in nearly every aspect. PC Magazine [3] did an article comparing various browsers in each browser aspect. Of course I will be focusing on Firefox and Chrome. Google Chrome beats Firefox in nearly every aspect when you directly compare them. In the Google V8 score(v.6) Google Chrome scored an 8205, while Firefox scored a measly 3459. In the Mozilla Kraken score 1.1 (lower is better) Chrome scored a 4841 while Firefox scored a 5707/In the SunSpider 0.9.1 Score (lower is better) Chrome scored 267 while scored a 282. Contention 3: The Google Chrome Web store has hundreds of potential apps and games to increase Chrome's effectiveness. The Chrome web store has hundreds of apps to increase the effectiveness and potential of Chrome. For example one of the apps is a NYTimes which allows you to read the New York Times in your browser. Another is the Quick Note apps which allows you to make quick notes to allow you to remember any thing you need at the time. Sources[1] . http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com...[2] . http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com...[3] . http://www.pcmag.com...[4] Google Web StoreThat's all for now.
Google Chrome is more useful than Mozilla Firefox

I will be arguing that Google Chrome is more useful than Mozilla Firefox, and my opponent must argue that Mozilla Firefox is more useful than Google Chrome.RulesRound 1: Acceptance, definitons, and clarification.Round 2: Arguments/RebuttalsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals, Closing argumentsDefinitonsGoogle Chrome is a web browser developed by Google that uses the WebKit layout engine.Mozilla Firefox is a free and open source web browser descended from the Mozilla Application Suite and managed by Mozilla Corporation.Usful is defined as capable of being put to use; especially : serviceable for an end or purpose <useful tools>Good luck to who ever takes this.
This Is A Chalenge

This challenge is a challenge like no otherthis is the pic there are 3 boxes = housesthere are 3 circles = wells1 man per houseeach man has to go to each well to get the type of water that they needGet a sheet of paper draw what is on the picture draw lines for the path that they take to each well but the lines cannot cross or come to a inter sectionthey cannot take the same pathno bridgesonly one man can go into one house and only that househave to get back to there house and cannot cross pathsHave fun who ever wants to take me up on this challenge
Vaccines can cause autism and other problems

So, there will be deaths from vaccines. But clearly, if we knew who would suffer from vaccines, we wouldn't give them the shot (Well, to a certain extent we do know some people who couldn't handle vaccines, but I'm talking about the ones we don't know). But, if we don't, then with all the vaccine-caution parents would be way to scared to give their children vaccines. That would be terrible. We need those that can get vaccines to get them. In a sense, it's like sacrificing one to save to save the rest. It isn't something we want, but it's needed to protect from the diseases.
Vaccines can cause autism and other problems

I do not believe that vaccines should be banned. I do believe that they should not be mandatory and that each parent should choose wether they have their kid vaccinated or not. Most of the time vaccines do not cause harm to people. But sometimes they do. Everyone has different body types. Every body will react differently to vaccines. Most people will not be harmed by them but because some people will be hurt or even killed by them, vaccines shouldn't be mandatory.
Vaccines can cause autism and other problems

healthimpactnews.com/2014/cdc-whistleblower-comes-forward-admits-coverup-on-vaccine-link-to-autism/ https://m.youtube.com... https://m.youtube.com... healthimpactnews.com/tag/cdcwhistleblower/ A former CDC researcher came forward and admitted that him and other cdc researchers did a study in 2002, that found a link between autism and vaccines. They found that boys who had been vaccinated earlier were 300% more likely to get autism.
Moral Relativism (Pro) vs. Divine Command Theory (Con)

This is a topic I would enjoy debating. My previous debate over this topic ended in forfeiture by my opponent, so I ask that my opponent not forfeit in this debate. Definitions:Moral Relativism - "[that] the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons" [1]Divine Command Theory - "human beings require a special divine assistance in their ordinary cognitive activities [of discerning moral behavior]" [2][1] . http://plato.stanford.edu...;[2] . http://plato.stanford.edu......;First