BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

Amnesity international is a global group that fights to protect people against violated justice, freedom, and human dignity. They also claim we have the rights to our body without fear of coercion. It is for this reason and the following points I stand in the firm affirmation of the resolution that states "Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices. My value for this debate will be that of autonomy and the value criterion I shall use will be that of hedonism. Autonomy: Immanuel Kant defines it as the right to govern oneself without unwanted outside interference Hedonism: the oxford english dictionary defines it as the ethical theory that pleasure is the highest good and proper aim of human life Adolescents: Merriam Webster defines it as a young person who is becoming an adult Rights: Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines it as rights to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done Ought: The philosopher Hume defines it as "should we" instead of "can we" Contention 1: Past violations. USnews.com published a story on 1/22/2015. It states, "Only months before turning 18, a Connecticut girl has been told by her state's supreme court that she must undergo chemotherapy against her wishes. This court case was decided on January 8th. The girl was identified on court papers only as Cassandra C." I want to emphasis on the words against her wishes. This goes against her autonomy and this does not give Cassandra pleasure. This is why we need my value and criterion. Contention 2: Teens should control the medicine they take. Kidshealth.com is a website I recently visited. It is a website with a group of expert doctors and physicians. They try to help people of all ages with their problems and here is what they have to say. "Time flies. Before you know it, your 13 year old is driving with you 16 year old off to college. With adulthood just around the corner there is no time like the present to begin encouraging teens to take on the leadership roles in all aspects of everyday life." Contention 3: Who this affects. Teens. The University of Washington School of Medicine has a few things to say. I will keep it brief. Basically if a child disagrees with a parent they should take things seriously. The child is the main focus here. In conclusion I leave you with this. "A man is born alone and dies alone; he experiences the good and bad karma of his consequences alone; and he alone goes to hell or the supreme adobe." -Chenyaka
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

. . Round 2: This will be opening statements, values, value criterion, definitions, and the structure of your case Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Closing statements I will take anyone and hope someone challenges. Good luck to all. I will be trying to prove that teenagers should have the right to choose what medicine they take. Thanks to my opponent, commentators, and judges. Good luck and let the debate begin.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

Neg lets the kids get the correct decisions since kids are too reckless, increases family communication which is key to my definition of autonomy, and avoids terrible impacts like divorces from these bad decisions. Also my opponent forfeits which is reason enough to vote neg right there. If you want kids to have the right decisions made, vote neg. If you want a world where adolescents make risky decisions and cause the parents to get divorced vote aff. The neg counterplan, net benefits, and contentions all have no response. Judge, you have to vote neg here. Thank you.
cars of today are boring and over-priced.

I will accept your Challenge.I would like to define a few terms that you use in your initial statement and to ask some questions to clarify your statement. DefinitionBoring- adjective 1.dull; repetitious; uninteresting Overpriced- verb (used with object), overpriced, overpricing.1.to price excessively high; set too high a price on.Style- aparticularkind,sort,ortype,aswithreferencetoform,appearance,orcharacter:Also refer to the time period that these cars that you are talking about came from, and certain things you state are irrelevant to your argument. Being able to tell the year a car was made does not make the car interesting, or not boring. Lacking a certain style does not make something uninteresting, because the car could be in a more modern style. Just because you prefer a certain style does not mean that modern cars lack their own style.
cars of today are boring and over-priced.

The cars of today are boring and over-priced. They lack the style that the older cars had. All that they want to do is make them as aerodynamic as possible. The older cars have lines and shapes and you could tell what year they were simply by looking at them. Plus, who wants to pay 20,000 dollars for something that was 12,000 dollars, or less, just a few years ago?
The God of War games were the best roleplaying games for the PS2.

I forfeited the debate for two reasons. First, let me be clear that forfeiting round 1 was an accident. Now that that's clear, I forfeited the debate for these two reasons: 1. I dislike two-round debates. Too much goes unanswered, and it's just not very fun [for me, at least]. 2. Many voters would automatically vote for you, since I had forfeited round one. Some voters simply don't tolerate round forfeits, some think it's my responsibility to address your R1 argument in my R1. By waiting until R2 to post, I would cause many voters to see my actions as abusive or irresponsible. So yeah.
The God of War games were the best roleplaying games for the PS2.

Why are you throwing the debate? Don't get me wrong, I don't like loosing but what good is a victory gained too eaisly? And I still don't get why you threw the debate. I think I started out relatively strong but not strong enough to completely crush my opponants opposition. Oh well, maybe logicalmaster will take on this debate. I'll leave the third round unanswered. PEACE!!!
The God of War games were the best roleplaying games for the PS2.

God of War II and I were THE best RPG's for the PS2. They had one of the best story's, combat systems, antagonists, and protagonists. Their choosing Greek mythology for the basis of their game was very interesting and unexplored, and they did a great job with it. The enemies were cool, the locations were great, the interactive cutscenes were some of the coolest ever, and the weapons were unique, and the leveling system for Kratos's powers wasn't half bad either. The costumes and unlockables made replayability fun and easy to get into, and the difficulty settings were challinging and intense. In conclusion, GOD OF WAR ROCKS!!!!! Nuff said.
Calvinism is heretical

I appreciate how well my opponent put to gether his opening round. I accept. I would like to point out that Jacob Arminian did believe in eternal security, once saved, always saved, just as the Calvinists do. He said, " at no period have I asserted that believers do finally decline or fall away from faith or salvation(Ibid., vol 1 , p.741)." His followers were the ones to reject eternal security. Thus, I don't want to discuss the 5th point because we both are in agreement. However, the burden of proof is on me to show why the first 4 points are heretical. May the better debater win.
Monarchy and Democracy IV

"The purpose of this debate will be an attempt by me to defend Hoppes thesis in the book Democracy: The God that Failed regarding Monarchy and Democracy; that is that Monarchy is a superior system of government than Democracy, a position contrary to my own beliefs. The burden of proof is shared. My Opponent acknowledges that they will have to present a case in affirmation of democracy themselves, merely trying to refute my arguments is an automatic forfeit. Round one is for acceptance. We will be using Hoppes definitions: Monarchy is privately owned government ultimately ruled by one individual who generally gained his status via the position of his birth. Dictators in the modern sense who sieze power without respect to private property, law and order, or social facilitation (as has been the general trend for autocrats in modern times) are not considered Monarchs. Monarchs pass on their kingdom to their heir after they die, and a kings kingdom is his personal property. Democracy is government owned publically. Leaders are chosen directly by the people or representatives of the people, or they are made directly by the people or representatives of the people (my opponent must choose to defend either representative democracy (Republic) or direct democracy), and decisions are made on the basis or majority rules be it a vote in Parliament, a public referrendum, ect. The Resolution is referring to rule of large territories in nation-states, advancing an argument such as democracy is better for a small town, or monarchy is better for family units or tribes leads to an auto-loss. The debate will center mostly around the historical effects of democracy, as well as inherent advantages of Monarchy. " (previous debates)In this debate, elective monarchies, constitutional monarchies such as the UK , noble republics and similar government forms shall be disregarded. This debate is long overdue, so I thought I would suggest it now. The first arguments may be directly copied and pasted from previous debates by the same user. Plagiarism from the self is allowed, all other plagiarisms must be cited, otherwise the debate results in a concession. As the word limit is constrictive, citing one's own work outside the site is allowed.
The US Ought to Substantially Restrict Voting Rights

Groundwork: By substantially restrict voting rights, I mean the following: Via Constitutional Amendment, the US should restrict the ability to vote so that only people who are significantly knowledgeable in the realm of politics be allowed to vote. This determination would be made by the creation of a nonpartisan political knowledge test -- created by an equally nonpartisan commission, the members of which would be approved by Congress. Ideally this test would restrict voting rights to no more than 15% of the US population. Following the passage of this Constitutional Amendment, the only time those without the right to vote would be able to vote would be in the case of a Referendum on whether or not to repeal said Constitutional Amendment. It is in this scenario, and only this scenario, that I would advocate restricting voting rights to what I will henceforth be referring to as the politically literate. My opponent should accordingly target this scenario only. First round will be for acceptance only. If you have any questions, ask them before you accept. If you accept before clearing something up, and that something creates an issue in the debate, the blame for that issue will fall on you when people start voting.
DDO's "7 point system " needs to be changed or removed

"There are two issues here that I see; the first is the example you provide where the 7 point system is what you claim to be the problem but then your solution to the problem is privatization. Well that removes the problem of bias but it also removes the point of this debate because the criteria changes immensely once you have a private judge. " The same problem happens with open 7 point voting. You are correct, using the "Select winner" form of debating should be used rather than the 7-point system as you should be focused on crafted arguments based on your judgement. " you're right none of the basics like BoP are mentioned and neither is an exhaustive list of fallacies or anything that would arm you for the ability to actually debate. Instead it's "tips" and they are good tips but they are not lessons" I never said that it was a manual, but that it doesn't give us enough quality tips to become better debaters. "So when we talk about the article it's really appealing more to those who actually know what they are doing to begin with" I would more or less disagree. There are tips in an attempt to help users debate. I'll give a few examples by quoting the article: "Grammar, spelling, and punctuation are important aspects of any piece of writing. Utilizing these language tools on Debate.org will help to maintain a professional appearance for your debates. Review your argument looking for grammar, sentence structure, and punctuation errors. For spelling errors, use the spell check feature found near the submit button." "Cite all of your significant facts, quotes, and sources. This will not only help to make your debate look more professional but, it will also allow users to have quick links to the background information of your debate. When citing facts, always remember to check their legitimacy and NEVER use false or made up facts. Using fake facts destroys your credibility and gives your opponent ammunition and an easy target in later rounds." "The topic of your debate should be a controversial statement. The topic should imply that there are only two sides to the argument. Creating a clear and arguable topic helps the debate look more professional and allows the reader to more easily comprehend the content of the debate and who is on which side." It's attempting to appeal to the general public, but also trying to help users structure their debates. 1. In a 7-point system, a voter can simply skip the definitions because it's not a requirement to vote. In a judge-based debate, by using the select winner and agreeing to definitions, although a judge disagrees with the definition, it's open to further discussion. 3. Well of course because you are required to deduce your conclusions from your premises to fulfill burden of proof. You can't simply disagree. 4. There's probably no way to remove bias, but it doesn't follow that the 7-point voting system is more effective. Furthermore, you can have select winner and still have open voting. I rest my case.
DDO's "7 point system " needs to be changed or removed

In essence "Where does your bias lie?" If i understand correctly, you are saying that this is important to know whether or not a debater is biased. However this is ineffective to prove bias as anyone can claim that they were not biased or simply leave it tied. Bias would be more effectively determined if the debaters could analyze the reasoning of the voters, spot prejudice, and defend their positions accordingly in a written format, not by the point system. Your right, conduct should be judged, but what constitutes better conduct? The point system doesn't say. It's too ambiguous and there's no criteria established of what better conduct is. It's better if the debaters simply defined it themselves. "Spelling" is an extremely important matter. For one if a person has to work hard to decipher what you are saying then you don't deserve their time. While you say it should be standard that people use spell check the problem is that spell check isn't perfect and it doesn't check for syntax or grammatical errors. "Four" instance I can type many things incorrectly on "porpoise" that spell "Czech" won't pick up. Doing this over and over leads to so many errors in understanding and it is frustrating. Again as it is quantifiable it should be considered score worthy." You bring up a good argument, however it should not be a determining factor in who won the debate. Standard writing should by default have good spelling and grammar in order to produce effective communication. Whether you are in school, at work, at home, anywhere you go to be expected to use proper language. Debating focuses primarily on logical reasoning, understanding other points of view, and evidence, thus spelling and grammar should not be a part of the criteria as much as other things listed above.
DDO's "7 point system " needs to be changed or removed

The seven point system does not require change or removal particularly because the basis of the argument is personal taste instead of a failure in the system. "Who did you agree with prior?", though no points are given it is actually a crucial question. In essence "Where does your bias lie?", because even if one votes on the debates if there is an overwhelming number of people who simply have bias voting then the contestants, mainly the loser, but sometimes both parties, can take this into account to reach a more sound conclusion on whether or not the constituents who voted really were capable of understanding what was presented to begin with versus simply voting for what they thought was right. "Who did you agree with after" is the same, it allows there to be knowledge of shift in bias and opinion and therefore again grants a more sound conclusion on what is actually being considered and how it is being processed. "Conduct" is a very important matter. You are right that it should, by default, be present but the reality is that it's not. Some people get heated in debates. Some people lost interest and quit halfway through. Some people put up no effort and just accept debates for the sheer purpose of spewing their own ideals. These are all examples of misconduct, the actual bad behaviors of either contestant, and because they are quantifiable the idea that there should be a score allotted to this is also sensible. "Spelling" is an extremely important matter. For one if a person has to work hard to decipher what you are saying then you don't deserve their time. While you say it should be standard that people use spell check the problem is that spell check isn't perfect and it doesn't check for syntax or grammatical errors. "Four" instance I can type many things incorrectly on "porpoise" that spell "Czech" won't pick up. Doing this over and over leads to so many errors in understanding and it is frustrating. Again as it is quantifiable it should be considered score worthy. It's clear you understand that Argumentation is obviously being judged so there is no reason to address that particular area.
illegal immigration

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. Definition: illegal- forbidden http://dictionary.reference.com... immigration- the movement of non-native people into a country in order to settle there http://dictionary.reference.com... Cause we both live in USA, I guess this issue takes place in USA. 1. Illegal immigrant is helpful to our economy. Immigrants illegally entering united states is good because they help out our economy. They make up the 5% of the total number of USA labor force. Illegal immigrant pay taxes which help fund USA economy. http://teacher.scholastic.com... 2. Illegal immigrants work for low cost. Illegal immigrants do the same job as any native and for a cheaper wage. 3.Illegal Immigrant support big businesses. The Burearu of Labor Statistics thinks that there are about 22% percent of construction workers are foreign born. Nationial Association of Home Builders says that about 25%-30% of the workers are illegal immigrants. http://money.cnn.com...
Death Penalty- (Brief, Quick, Debate)

"For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life. Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his image God made humankind." [1] The taking of another person's life is not to be flippant or a trivial thing; justice whereby the perpetrator receives a similar punishment to the crime committed ensures that life and spilling blood are serious matters. If you take someone else's life with malice, you may justly and morally lose your own life. [1] Genesis, chapter 9, verses five and six, New Revised Standard Version, 1989.
Death Penalty- (Brief, Quick, Debate)

The death penalty should never be used except in cases of premeditated, conscious murder and never self-defense leading to accidental homicide. One of the primary reasons for the death penalty is a just society where one person who takes another person's life has serious consequences. Blood for blood, so to speak. In Genesis chapter 9, after Noah has been discharged from the ark, God issues instructions for civil and just societies to be conducted. There are punishments for taking the life of humans and animals which includes the execution of criminals who take other people's lives. Why do you believe that the death penalty is so severe? Many people who have committed homocides have asked for the death penalty. Also, why is it severe in pain and suffering? What if the state can find a very quick way to execute lifelong criminals who have resisted every method of rehabilitation? Won't that cause less pain and suffering to the victims of the criminal?
Death Penalty- (Brief, Quick, Debate)

Capital punishment is a necessary evil. It is part of retribution so that society has an ordered sense of justice. It is used as a last resort. It is a form of deterrence. When it is determined that many wrongful convictions have occurred which have placed innocent people on "Death Row," the governor [or other lawful authority] can and should declare a moratorium on the death penalty until all current death row inmates awaiting execution would have further opportunity to review their cases and figure out ways to speed up DNA crime analysis to confirm or disconfirm guilt. My opponent argues about all of this suffering and pain for the death penalty. But the death penalty is quick compared to a lifetime rotting in prison. Rehabilitation programs may or may not work and may put rapists and serial killers right back out on the street. Here's some testimony about the devastating murders committed by John Wayne Gacy. [1] It was best for him. [1] http://www.prairieghosts.com...
Death Penalty- (Brief, Quick, Debate)

Death is truly an unusually severe punishment. Unusual in it's pain, unusual in it's suffering, it's finality, and it's enormity. Because of the nature of the death penalty, it treats those humans who are on death row as non humans toyed with and discarded. No matter what the crime, death should never be the choice. If anything, the worse punishment should be a life sentence. Rather than death, we should implement rehabilitation programs such as those seen in today's society, e.g. Homeboy Industries. Programs such as Homeboy Industries should be promoted more as well so that those who live in a life of crime or violence can seek help, shelter, and ultimately, a step in the right direction in their life. By doing this, we will reduce cost of imprisonment, promote a healthier environment in society, and lower part of the crime in many places today.
Child molesters should tortured to death.

My opponent does not address my argument and suggest that he is conceding this debate in round 2. Anyway, as for that extra clarification I said I would deliver, I suppose I will provide it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This moï¿½lest /məˈlɛst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[muh-lest] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object) 1. to bother, interfere with, or annoy. 2. to make indecent sexual advances to. 3. to assault sexually. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straight from dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com... Specifically look at definition #2. In the US, Statutory rape comes to mind. In other words, even if a child (perhaps 16 years old) consents to having sexual relations with an adult (perhaps 22 ears old), it is still considered to be child molestment in legal terms. This is mostly due to legal complications. The main thing to keep in mind is that even if both parties want and accept what they are doing, the adult would still be subject to death of the worst kind. Does this crime really warrant this kind of punishment even if there are no effects on the level of a life being lost? Surely not. Time in prison would be the most justified punishment. At least then, lives can be preserved. Not to mention that the fact that time in prison can help reform a sex offender.