BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You should be able to vote at the age of 16 in the US

I am currently a 16 year old, and I, like many other elegable voters, know nothing about how a country should be run. Sure, I have my views, but really, I don't know anything about commerce, foreign affairs, or even national security. And I, not to toot me own horn, feel as though I am very concerned with politics as far as teenagers go. Why, therefore should we allow more ignorant people to determine the fate of our country? 16 year-olds are minors: they do not have adult status. Ergo no vote
You should be able to vote at the age of 16 in the US

16-year-olds should be allowed to vote in the US. Prior to the 26th amendment being passed, you had to be 21 to vote. The 26th amendment lowered the age to 18. Lowering the age has already been successful once, why not do it again? About 10% of 16-year-olds work. Many complain that these numbers are dropping, which they are, but giving 16-year-olds the right to vote would make them feel more like adults, possibly bringing up the employment rate.
Mental Health is an issue within our education system

In this debate, I will prove that my opponent's statements are incorrect. Both myself and my wife are teachers...her at the elementary level and myself at the middle and high school. My arguments in this debate will come from our experiences as well as other credible sources. I will quickly discuss the three statements that my opponent has mentioned as a basis for her argument. My opponent states that the amount of homework given has increased over the last decade. I remember being in elementary school having about two or three hours of homework a night. I can guarantee you that none of the students at our school has that much homework each night. Secondly, there is not very much pressure in regards to standardized tests. Yes, there is more of a push for results on standardized tests, but the pressure is being felt by the teaching staff, not the students. In fact, our school has set up programs over the last year to try to motivate students to take these tests more seriously. Even many high school seniors who are trying to get into college do not stress over taking tests like the ACT. I have seen very few cases where students are "stressing out" over a standardized test. To discuss the third topic in regard to mental illnesses, I will need my opponent to explain further as to what in particular they are referring to. I will provide more arguments and sources in the following rounds.
why not show your identity online such as, debate,myspace,facebook and etc

First and foremost, my opponent is for revealing personal information that you can be identified by on sites such as this one, myspace, and facebook. He also expands this to several other sites (etc.) but I will not be addressing those. First of all, Myspace and facebook already pretty much require you to show your identity. It's a profile page. However, this does not mean we should feel free to tell our employers and college acceptance staff to view those pages. For the most part, those things are for networking among peers and the image we portray professionally is quite different from the image we portray to our peers. Now, on to the main point. My opponent argues that we should show our identities on debate.org I personally feel that this is a bad idea. We have no idea who else would have access to this information. I myself posted a bit too much information regarding my location and was actually discovered by someone living in my area. Although he did not look like a very scary person, I must say that I wish to keep my anonymity. It's scary to be stalked. To follow along with that point, many people like to use the internet as a buffer zone. There are many of us here at debate.org who probably are not very outspoken in real life but feel free to express ourselves through the internet. The anonymity gives us an outlet, a new personality. To identify ourselves would be to get rid of that powerful veil that enables us to go beyond our actual personalities. Finally, we have no idea what our employers like or dislike. The matters on debate.org can get a bit personal. Or controversial. Odds are, you don't know which presidential candidate your employer supports, or what their stance is on abortion, or the existence of God. If you let them get too much information from you, you might jeopardize your position because honestly speaking, employers are biased. Though the writing may be good, your arguments may compromise your employment possibilities. Thus, I say let the anonymous stay anonymous. They are legion.
Don't stress over homework in high school

When you are in high school, you are forced to take classes that you not only don't have an interest in taking, but don't even like. The class may have no benefit to you at all, especially if you know what you want to go to college for and the class has nothing to do with your plan. When you are in college, you get to pick which classes suit you. The homework that you will be doing for those classes may be enjoyable, but it may also be tedious. However, even if it is tedious, you need to do it because your degree depends on the successful completion of the course. Besides, not doing the best you can do in college is a waste of your money (or your parents' money). You don't pay thousands of dollars to go to high school and you don't like the classes. Don't kill yourself trying to finish every assignment. The expectations of a high school student and a college student are expressly different. If you don't do your homework in high school, people will not judge you as harshly as they would if you didn't do your homework in college. By the time you get to college, you are expected to be mature and more in tune with being willing to get high marks. Not doing your homework in college shows a lack of care for even being there, which like I was saying before, is a waste of money. In high school, it is more acceptable for someone to not do homework. Even if you are "mature enough" to be focused on getting high grades (is that really mature anyway?), you can still get away with not doing homework in favor of having time for more fun activities. No one will think badly of you! So go ahead and do it. You'll save yourself from going nuts spending hours on homework you don't even care about, and you'll be able to make a "miraculous 180" in college. People might be more impressed with you if you do that anyway. The following link has testimonials similar to my reasons: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com...
Don't stress over homework in high school

If you get rejected from either of those schools, college probably isn't the place for you. Anyway, if you're smart enough to not have to do all your homework, then don't. My argument is to not stress over homework in high school, not to never do homework at all. Doing homework before high school is indeed a good idea, as my Con friend pointed out. It does help to enforce what is learned in school. By the time high school comes around though, you've had 8 years of practice with homework. If you've figured out how to basically get it done, then you shouldn't be spending your whole day on it. Studies have been done showing the clear benefit of doing homework for younger kids. Interestingly enough, studies show that the same principle does not necessarily apply to students who are in high school. The myth that the more time spent doing homework will improve a students performance is false. In fact, the ideal amount of time is only about 1 to 2 hours a day. The British school system even recommends only half an hour a day for higher level students. Doing more than 3 hours of homework will actually be detrimental to a person, cutting into valuable extra-curricular activities. The College Board stresses the importance of extra-curricular activities; we can't deny that! If too much time is spent doing homework, there will be no time for anything like sports, taking a jobs, or just general hang-out time with friends, which is valuable in its own right, teaching kids to be cooperative and inventive when making plans. If you aren't getting enough of this activity, you need to knock it off with the homework. Again, my point is that you just need to do enough. You don't need to get 100's on your homework if it's getting you 0's in the outside world.http://www.memory-key.com...http://www.collegeboard.com...http://teenlibrarianstoolbox.blogspot.com...
Don't stress over homework in high school

Picking-and-choosing which homework assignments to do is a great idea. As long as you do enough to not completely fail your class, you can go far with a passing grade. Many state schools, such as Montclair University and William Paterson University in New Jersey will accept students with a GPA as low as, well, nothing! There is no minimum requirement. Although the "recommended" incoming GPA is a 3.0, anyone who goes to either of those schools knows that much of the student body came in with a GPA far below 3.0. Anyone who goes to either of those schools also knows how good of an education the schools provide. WPU and Montclair both rank as being in the top regional northern universities. That being said, you really don't have to stress out about doing all of your homework. All you need to do is do enough to not fail and you'll be able to get into college. Spend time with your friends instead. Have fun. References for admission requirements: http://ask.wpunj.edu...? http://www.montclair.edu...
Don't stress over homework in high school

As the con position, I assert and will prove that homework is a necessary tool to fully understand and comprehend course materials in high school. I will also show that the best time to obtain knowledge is in the early years of ones life, and thus high school is just as, if not more important than college in terms of education. High school is the time in ones education career that you expand upon the basic knowledge learned in grade and junior high school. During this time a student must not only obtain the knowledge necessary for collegiate level classes, but must also develop the study habits necessary to succeed in college.
Don't stress over homework in high school

Spending a lot of time on homework in high school is a waste of time. When you spend all day and all night doing homework most days of the week, you're not doing anything but making the future hard for yourself. Instead of doing homework, you should be hanging out with your friends, making memories and having good times that you'll never have again. If you waste all of that time with your nose in your textbooks, you're going to hate yourself later on in life. Besides, you spend enough time learning the material during the school day anyway. If you don't know the material by the time you get home, then you're probably never really going to get much more out of it. If you're doing homework to get better grades, that is also a waste of time because you can get into college with a less-than-perfect GPA, particularly state schools which will give you the same education as a private school. If you want a perfect GPA, then college is a time to start over. Don't waste what little time you have in high school.
Faith can be based on facts

Pro's final response has been addressed by me in round 1. So there is nothing to respond to there. In my opinion Pro seems to be very lose with how he uses the world "faith. " It can be effectively replaced by many different words, the teacher thinks, the teacher predicts, the teacher expects, the teacher anticipates, the teacher believes, the teacher concludes. I would question whether Pro is using the word correctly. I'll leave that to the voters. There is also a logical issue with this idea. Facts are true things. If true things support a conclusion, then it would stand to reason that the conclusion should also be true. So if facts support a faith conclusion, yet the faith conclusion is wrong, do the facts actually support the faith conclusion? The answer must be no. Fact, Bob has kept all his promises to Derek. Bob promises Derek he will pick him up at the airport. Derek has "faith" Bob will. This faith is supported by the fact that Bob has always kept his promises. Bob doesn't keep this promise. Derek's faith conclusion is wrong. Derek's faith conclusion cannot be supported by true facts if the faith conclusion is wrong. Therefore the faith conclusion wasn't supported by facts. Why not? Because the facts exist in the past. The faith conclusion is for the future. The faith conclusion is disconnected from the facts due to the fact that the facts refer to things in the past and the faith conclusion is a prediction. Conclusion, true facts cannot support an incorrect faith conclusion. The examples Pro has given us, regarding faith, are future predictions. He is using past facts to support future predictions. If the faith conclusion is wrong, we can safely say the facts didn't support it. All Pro's examples can be wrong. If they can be wrong, then they aren't supported by true facts. We are really talking about probability here. Probability is the foundational idea behind this whole debate. A certain past probability, then a future prediction based on the past probability. We would be much more accurate in this debate if "faith" was replaced with "probability. " Past probability "facts" don't adversely effect future probability perspectives. The student may not turn the homework in on time. This still remains logically consistent with the past facts. As we just saw above, that isn't true for faith. Faith can be wrong. If it can be wrong, it isn't supported by true facts. The proposition doesn't hold. Thank you for voting and debating.
Faith can be based on facts

1. I was talking about 3a, sorry. 2. You're mixing up what I'm saying again: The teacher has faith (strong conviction) that the child will return his assignment on time because of the probability that he will. It's not complete blind faith, and the teacher has a good reason for their conviction: The teacher has strong conviction that the child will turn it in on time based on the fact that the child turns it in nearly 9/10 times, which I'd say is faith based on facts.
Faith can be based on facts

I'm not referring to 2a at all, only 3b, but I'll go down to your example. 1. You said: "This faith statement is related to today. The facts of today are yet to be uncovered. There are no facts from today that support today's belief that the man will not be robbed today. The fact that the man hasn't been robbed in the past doesn't, in a factual manner, support the conclusion that he won't be robbed today. Everyday someone is robbed for the first time. The man may be that someone. His faith that he won't be robbed today isn't supported by a fact that he won't be robbed today. When the day is over, and the man wasn't robbed, it then becomes a fact that he wasn't robbed. What just happened? Fact replaced faith. We return to the definitions, faith: 3a, Something which is believed with strong conviction. This fits the man's faith position. He strongly believes he won't be robbed, this is yet to be a fact." I'm not saying that the fact that he's never been robbed before should lead him to the conclusion that he won't be robbed today, just that, since he's never been robbed before, he is pretty sure he won't get robbed today. It's not that his faith he won't get robbed, is supported by the fact that he won't be robbed: Just that since he's never been robbed before, he is pretty sure he won't get robbed "today". 2. You said, "This is effectively the same example as above. A person has faith a promise will be kept later. If it is later, the person cannot know for a fact that the promise will be kept. The belief that promise A will be kept, isn't support by the fact that promise A was kept." This same thing applies: I never said that the belief that the promise will be kept, is supported by the fact that promise A was kept, but that the belief that the promise will be kept is founded upon the clean record their friend has in terms of keeping promises. As an example, someone could have faith that their favorite movie company's next movie will be good, even though they can't know gor sure, because they liked all the movies they made before that. Kind of like this: A child turns in their homework on time 89% of the time, so the teacher has faith that he will turn in his next assignment on time. Not because the teacher knows the future, but because the child has a very good track record. When I say, "Faith can be based on facts.", I mean that certain facts can lead someone to have faith in something, not that the faith someone has is fact. In other words, "A true piece of information" can lead someone to "Believe something with strong conviction."
Faith can be based on facts

Put your first argument in round 1: Here's examples of how faith can be based upon facts: -A man has faith someone won't rob him today because it never happened to him. -Someone has faith when their friend promises to do something because they always do the they promised to do. -Someone has faith their friend won't die in the hospital because the doctors are taking good care of them. -Someone has confidence they will win a race because they have rarely ever lost.
The existence of God is unlikely

I apologise for misunderstanding the instructions; I'm not used to formal debating. However, I would like to remind Pro that, as the instigator, he has burden of proof, and that he loses the debate if he doesn't meet it."I should also mention that divine omnipotence does not mean the power to do absolutely anything. When we say God is omnipotent, we mean that he can all that is logically possible."Pro did not make this distinction in his opening statement. What's more, it doesn't reflect the way the term "omnipotent" is used.When people say, "John is omnipotent", they mean that John can do absolutely anything without regard to rules, laws, logic or sense.http://powerlisting.wikia.com...If John's powers have limitations (e.g. logic), then we would say, "John is nigh-omnipotent," or words to that effect.http://powerlisting.wikia.com...As Pro did not make a distinction in his opening statement, I was well within my rights to interpret "omnipotent" however I chose."In Hebrews 6:18 it says “it is impossible for God to lie", and in James 1:13 it says “God cannot be tempted by evil.”"Actually, God can and does deceive people throughout the Bible.2 Chronicles 18:22"Behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets."Ezekiel 14:9"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."2 Thessalonians 2:11"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."Isaiah 45:7"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."Premise 1:When you use the terms "all-loving", "morally perfect" and "completely good", you suppose that your idea of what these things should resemble is the correct one. I've already explained how an omnipotent being like God can ignore logic, so I won't repeat the argument. Instead, I'll point out that love takes many forms. God's idea of "love" could be completely messed-up from your point of view, but he's still all-loving as long as that love is absolute and universal.Premise 2:Pro refutes my counter to premise 2 by supposing that there are abstract rules defining good and evil. What he's failed to realise is that God made good and evil, and can define and/or ignore them at his discretion.http://powerlisting.wikia.com...Conclusion:The idea of God is, at its core, that of a supreme being that transcends all limits - be they physical, moral or logical. To impose any system of rules upon such a being violates the very essence of the concept.An argument from evil can never disprove the existence of God; all it shows is that if God does exist, he is a colossal jerk. Even jerks are morally perfect by their own divine standards.If Pro wants to disprove God, he needs an argument that addresses God's existence instead of his character.And no, I will not forfeit.
The existence of God is unlikely

To recap, God is: Omnipotent (he can do absolutely anything) Omniscient (he knows absolutely everything) Omnibenevolent (he is morally perfect) And we are basing his existence upon good vs. evil. -------------------------- God is can do absolutely anything. Therefore, he can violate the rules of logic. If two of his traits contradict each other, no logical inconsistency occurs - omnipotence can be thought of as a buffer in this respect. Does your head hurt yet? Let's try a visual representation. Suppose the following: 1. God is completely good. 2. God is completely evil. 3. God is immune to logic (because he's omnipotent). As long as 3 is correct, 1 and 2 will not contradict each other, and God can be perfectly good and perfectly evil (separately or together, both are fine). God can also define the rules of morality. If God says drowning kittens is good, then it's good. Obviously, an omnipotent being can make morality objective instead of subjective, so whether we consider something good or evil is irrelevant. God is not morally perfect because he does moral things. God is morally perfect because he is omnipotent, and anything he does is therefore moral. Might makes right. Now to address your premises: Premise 1 is simply incorrect. God is omnipotent, and can therefore create/allow evil whilst still being 100% good. He can drown kittens and yet truthfully claim to never have drowned a kitten. And he can make it the kitten's fault. And we will still regard him as the most righteous being to ever exist, and will teach our children to pray to him and do as he says. And we will spit on the image of the kitten, and call him Satan, and drown ten kittens every year to show how much we hate the kitten called Satan. If you think I'm being ridiculous here, just consider how the Bible portrays God. The God of the Bible is presented as a Jerk Sue (a person who behaves despicably, yet is still presented by the author as good). Jerk Sues, like all Mary Sues, are typically an indication of poor writing. In order for God to exist, all we have to do is abandon the assumption that our universe is well-written. Point being, your premise has no basis on which to assert anything about God, because is illogical by nature. Premise 2 is a given. There's no need to reassert that God could define all that evil as good. Conclusion doesn't follow anymore. As for why God would allow evil to exist? Well, he could be all-hating as well as all-loving. He could be bored. Or he could be completely irrational (yet also completely rational - omnipotence, remember?), and thus distributes good and evil randomly throughout the world (but also with absolute precision and planning, because he's rational too). I think that's enough of a mind screw. Your turn.