BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ruling in Williams v. Walker Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

The results are proof that the contract is unconscionable. One side (Walker-Thomas) has benefited immensely from a contract that demanded clearly unreasonable terms from the other (Williams). The rates were raised to levels that were impossible to pay, and after five years of making payments she has left the transaction with no possessions, despite the fact that the appellant has paid almost eight times the original sales price in interest. There subjective claim would imply that I could only imply this argument by a sense of feeling and ignores the objective fact of the case that are recorded above. Could you imagine a world where every minute detail agreed upon was actually enforceable by law? The reason that such a world does not coincide with reality is that there are cases such as these where one party's demands exceed the boundaries of reason. This is why we have laws that protect us from crude business practices. Contracts do not come with tests verifying your knowledge of the contents, they merely leave a line(s) that require a signature and assume that the person has read all of the pertinent articles. For example, whenever certain internet products have software updates they ask their clients to sign a contract. Beneath an obscenely long wall of text are two boxes, one says I agree with the terms of conditions, the other says the opposite. You may think you have a choice of options but if you choose the negative box then the service is withheld. Your only remaining option is to comply with the terms and conditions because you need the service. Now imagine, that within that box of text was fine print stating that if you accept the terms and conditions the service provider can repossess your computer whenever they chose to. Though you agreed to those terms you may not have understood what you've initially signed. The reason companies are not allowed to do that is because such demands are unreasonable and more importantly, unconscionable. Furthermore, the problem with your "business argument" is that such a practice of abusing clients does not truly benefit a business. Preying on the financially destitute does not benefit the store any more that the customer. Sure the store might make a profit over the five years of payments but do you think that disenfranchised clients such as Williams or Thorne are going to recommend the business to prospective clients, or instead tell tales of their hardships with the company? Lastly, with regards to your point about priorities I would quote the dissenting Judge Danaher in saying that "what is a luxury to some may be an outright necessity to others (513.6.3). Necessities are subjective to any client but there still should have been a warning or at least a reminder to the client of her balance with the retailer. Such careless behavior on the store's part was harmful to their client. Selling more credit to a debtor would be like a bar selling drinks to an alcoholic only because it was good for business.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

Pro says: "Of course this contract was intended to be unconscionable." There is no proof or evidence that the contract designed by the Walker-Thomas furniture company was intended to be unconscionable. That is a subjective claim. Unless there was some sort of proof showing that the contract was intended to be unconscionable then your claim would be valid. Pro says: "I would argue that it is in fact a contract writer's responsibility to ensure that a willing party comprehends the terms of a contract, on the basis that if not, there was never truly consent in the first place. How could any contract be enforceable if one of the involved parties lacks sufficient understanding what he or she is liable for?" I would argue this by saying indeed she had to understand the contract if she had to sign the contract. By signing a contract you are telling the other party or parties involved that you agree or you understand the guidelines to the contract. If he or she does not sufficiently understand a contract, they should have never signed the contract to begin with. Since she has been purchasing items since December 1957, it is just difficult just to believe that this woman lack sufficient understanding.(511.3.3) Pro says: "Once again, being that the company knew of Williams' financial condition they also must have known that the added debt to her balance it would make it impossible for Williams to keep up with her monthly installments." I would argue this by saying that even though the furniture company did know about William"s living situation they are still a business. In this situation they have to do what is best for business. In most companies if someone is offering you money that is difficult to refuse. The furniture company has employees and those employees have families just like William"s does and they need a way to making a living and provide for their families. So of course in this situation the furniture company is going to take the money. If William"s knew that she was in a financial hole and she knew that there was a probability that she would not be able to keep up with her monthly installments, she should of have never purchased that stereo set for $514(512.1.6). She is an adult and should be able to understand her priorities. In that situation that is nobody but William"s fault that she is in the financial situation that she is in.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

I find that very difficult to believe that Williams had not been aware that the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company would repossess the rest of her items since she had prior business transactions with them. Like I stated, earlier for each item that she purchased, there was a contract involved. It is not the Furniture Companies fault that she could not fully comprehend the contract. She had more than enough time to request assistance to fully comprehending the guidelines to each contract. In no way was Williams threatened or forced into signing those contracts , if Williams felt that the contract was unconscionable, she had the freedom and choice to not sign those contracts that she did. I am sure that even if the contract may even seemed to be unconscionable, it was not intententional. The Walker-Thomas furniture company is a business, and in no way should they want to deprive their customers of purchasing what they truly desire, the only thing that the Walker-Thomas Company asked is that their customers comply with each guideline of the contract
The ruling in Williams v. Walker Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

I never argued that Williams had made all of her payments, I am only claiming that such an agreement was not enforceable because it was unconscionable. Despite Williams years as a client of the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company, she had no real way of knowing that the appellee would repossess all of the items she had paid for since her first transaction, since this repossession had only occurred after their final transaction with one another. Walker-Thomas had exploited Williams' financial status so that she would pay more money on interest than the original price for the items ($14,000 on items that originally cost $1800). Such a business practice is neither just or reasonable. Furthermore, even if this predatory sales tactic was agreed upon, it was still unconscionable because lend-lease was the only method that Williams could use acquire the desired products. Being that Williams lacked the capital to pay the full sale price of the items it was unlikely that she could receive a loan for the items she needed. Thus, she was coaxed into an arrangement of debt that she could never truly escape because she lacked any real bargaining power to receive the items through alternative means. The timing of the replevy is also indicative of unconscionable sales practices. The company allowed her to raise her rates to levels that clearly exceeded her means and replevied the items when it became apparent that they could no longer profit off of her outstanding debts. Walker-Thomas could have chose to replevy the items the first time Williams had defaulted on payments but instead reserved the privilege for when it was most advantageous for the Company and most detrimental for the client. The wording of the replevy clause is unconscionable because it grants an unreasonable amount of power to the contract giver in a scenario where the contract signer already has virtually no bargaining power. So far you have dodged my original conclusion that the contract was unconscionable and have done little to disprove any of the original premises of my argument.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

In the case of Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Company., there lies an issue of default in payment. Any business transaction that is done through the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company involves a contract. In the contract it states that the customer is responsible for making the exact payments on the assigned dates. From what I can see through reading this case is that the defendant has been doing business with the Walker-Thomas Furniture for quite some years now. The defendant should have been well aware of how business is done. In every contract there are expectations, and if the defendant knew that she could not exceed those expectations, she should have never signed the contract. (1.)It shows proof that she has conducted business with the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company in the past because it says that she has purchased items since December of 1957. (511.3.4) (2.)For each and every item Williams purchased there was suppose to be a payment due every month. (511.1.3) (3.)Even though she purchased the items, the contract specifically says the title of the items will still be in the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company name until all the payments for the item is paid off. (511.1.4) (4.)Williams defaulted on a payment for a stereo on April 17, 1962 (511.3.4) (5.)Therefore, the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company should legally be able to repossess their items from the defendant, and this ruling should go in their favor.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams

In the case of Williams v. Walker Thomas Furniture Co, the appellant purchased a number of items from the appellee. The contract of purchase stipulated that payments were to be made in monthly installments (511.1.2). Similar to most leasing agreements, usage of the products were transferred to the client but ownership would remain with the retailer until the total monthly payments had become equivalent to the stated price of the items (511.1.4). If Williams failed to pay on a monthly installment, Walker-Thomas could repossess the items (511.1.5). Furthermore, the contract also allowed for the company to raise the monthly installment rates in proportion to any existing debts that the purchaser may owe until such outstanding dues were liquidated (511.2.1). Williams had been purchasing items from the Walker-Thomas furniture company from 1957 to 1962. Upon defaulting on a payment for a stereo set in 1962 the appellee sought to replevy all of the items that Williams had ever purchased from the company (511.3.4). In the following month, the practice recurred when appellant Thorne's items where repossessed for defaulting on payments (511.3.2). Thorne had been a client of the Walker-Thomas Furniture Co since 1958. My argument for Williams is that the contracts made between the appellant and the appellee are unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable. 1. Williams depended on a $218 monthly stipend to help feed, clothe, and support herself and seven children. 2. The Walker Thomas Furniture Co knew that given 1, Williams was in no financial position to keep up with her monthly installments if she had purchased the stereo set but still permitted her to make such a disadvantageous agreement (512.1). 3. By the time Williams' items had been replevied she had already paid $14,000 since her first transaction, far exceeding the initial total sum of purchases that was only $1800 (513.footnote 1). 4. A reasonable contract would have allowed her to keep the items that were fully paid for. 5. Points 3 and 4 prove that this contract was unreasonably favorable to the Walker-Thomas Furniture Company. 6. Point 1 suggests that Williams had limited means, thus, little bargaining power, and hence little real choice in deciding the terms of the contract (513.1.1). 7. It is unconscionable for a company to exploit a person's financial condition (Point 2) through a bargain that grants the company unreasonably favorable profits (point 3). 8. Therefore, the ruling in Williams v. Walker Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams because the agreement was unconscionable.
college tuition too expensive

Tamar Lewin published an article "Burdens of College Loans on Graduates Grows" in the New York Times. It reflects on some of the statistics based from 2008 students taking out loans to pay for their education. The facts show that people that have to pay more money for school will be less likely to finish school and be able to provide for their families in the future. Since our economy is doing bad all the big institutions have to raise their tuition to survive in this harsh depression. Many believe that when it comes to education the price for it should not matter because, we live in a society that is education is very important. Mark Kantrowitz, the publisher of Finaid.org and fastweb.com compiled evidence from students taking private and federal loans to cover their education while in school. It came to the starling amount that two thirds of bachelor recipients were in debt about 24,000 dollars. For many people with low income it will take them about twenty to thirty years to pay off their school loans. Mr. Kantrowitz coming up with the statistics to show how from 1993 the tuition was less than half of 2008. Even though there are some ways to go to college without being in big debt, many people do not want to go to junior colleges then to a university. This is a long process and some people want to really get the college experience. As a student here I do have several friends that took that route and one of the main problems with that was having your courses transferred over to your major. In places like Georgia that do pay for your tuition if you have a 3.5 or higher is a great thing, but other states do not have it. Either way you look at it people are going to have to pay back some money. When you graduate you never really graduate with any money because college is a grind.
college tuition too expensive

The cost of college is becoming a big problem in the U.S. But that is not the fault of the universities. If the economy and other main factors where not in such a hole, there would be no reason to raise tuition. However, there are many options for students out there to find help with college tuition. For example, the state of Georgia will pay for a students college tuition if he or she graduates with a GPA of 3.5 or better. Now that is just Georgia but that is an example of how the there are options out there. The Pell grant system also though, not everybody gets this opportunity it is money given with out being expected to be paid back. The point I want to get across is that college tuition being raise a crossed the nation is not the result of a greedy chancellor or a football team that is not selling out the stadium. There are also different routes students are able to take to get to a university. There are many students who attend a community college for 2 years and then transfer to a university to complete there degree. I also agree that college is worth every penny because of its life experiences and how it builds you into a better person. Creating better payback systems only creates loans and loans equal debt.
college tuition too expensive

The cost of college is becoming an issue all across America. With the current state of the economy, the percent of unemployed workers and the cost of college can seem like a far fetched goal. Many people who may not receive a scholarship or enough government funding may not be able to attend college. This is a big issue because having a college background is becoming an important factor in the business world today but, the cost makes many look for other options. The idea of having to pay back thousands of dollars makes people question is it actually worth it? From my stand point it is. You may not leave college doing the same thing you began with but the life experiences are endless. College gives you not only knowledge but builds you into a better person by taking you through life experiences. With the cost of college increasing it may hurt generations to come because they will not be able to experience, learn and grow into a better individual. Without future doctors, lawyers,athletes etc where will the world be in the future. Who will run the country, perform surgeries and close business deals? All of these questions will be as questions unanswered if people are not able to afford college. There should be more options better payback systems to make the cost of college more affordable.
college tuition too expensive

Your statement saying that everyone should receive an equal opportunity to a adequate education is very true. However I believe the government and states are doing there best for what they got. Loans and other programs to get student to high end schools would just the nation in more debt. Again like before we as a nation are in debt and it would be a difficult task for the government to make it "EASY" for people to get the education they want. The government does have the lower class in their best interest seeing how the Pell grant program has not been cut, despite being one of the top contributors to our debt. The middle class are in a tough situation since it is hard for them to get the finical aid that the lower class gets. College tutition is too expensive but it is just a reflection upon the debt of the nation.
college tuition too expensive

Your right, not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to afford a four year institution but that does not mean they must "do what they gotta do" and settle with an inferior junior college education. Everyone should be given an equal opportunity to receive an adequate education. However, this is not at all what happens with the financial aid process at most schools. Those students who come from wealthy backgrounds and can afford expensive tuition don't have to worry about graduating in debt, like the two-thirds of the rest of the college population. The "financially needy" students, who come from homes that don't have a stable financial situation, also don't graduate with as much debt because the financial aid they receive is very significant. Tuition, room and board, and sometimes even books is often times covered for these students. Therefore, it is the middle class students who represent the two-thirds of students who graduate with at least 24,000 dollars in debt. It is not fair to these students to have to settle with junior colleges because they also have to work and go to school to pay for there schooling at their junior college.
college tuition too expensive

It is unfortunate to hear that the more money you have to take out for school the less likely you are projected to finish. But again there is really no one to blame. Not everybody is fortunate enough to afford college. Yes it is true that not that not many people WANT to go the junior college then an university route, but at the end of the day "you gotta do what you gotta do". Even though two thirds of bachelor recipients are 24,000 in debt, we must stay focus on the goal the goal , which is to graduate college. Over a work life, earnings for a worker with a bachelor's degree compared with one who had just a high school diploma increase by about $1 million for non-Hispanic Whites and about $700,000 for African Americans; Asians and Pacific Islanders; and Hispanics. The statistics I have pasted above prove that over a lifetime a degree will increase your income. So paying off 24,000 for 20 to 30 years does seem life a long time. The amount of money you earn over a lifetime overshadows the debt. College being too expensive again is just the after effects of the economy. A great example would be North Carolina colleges. Particularly, NC State recently the budget has been cut by 80 million dollars. This is not the fault of the students or the administration. But something has to be done, should NC State raise tuition to so that it could continue to educate students for years to come, or neglect the budget cuts, keep tuition at the same price and eventually go bankrupt? http://usgovinfo.about.com...
My statement was not post hoc ergo propter hoc.

"During the Columbine incident, it was two boys who played Doom alot did all the killing." You accused me of this fallacy on that other rigged argument I was having. This is clearly not Post hoc ergo propter hoc and I'll prove it. Playing video games was mostly what these kids did and according to that article illogical masturbator presented, it says that those others reasons the boys killed people were myths. It's obvious that they got their god complexes from being skilled at doom at that tends to happen to people when they merely post on forums while believing to have won these "debates." In short Tatarize, you're a smart kid, but you've got a lot more to work on when it comes to reasoning.
you are a cylon

"I trust no one because every five minutes someone is ending up a cylon the Cylons' long frickin fingers creep me out" Well... Notice that: 1. Pro offers absolutely no evidence to support this. 2. I actually have short, stubby, fat fingers, contradicting with his belief that I'm a colon... 3. Still no reason to believe I'm a cylon, even if we accept his argument is an absolute fact. Thanks!
Seatbelt and helmet laws should be abolished.

My opponent seems to think that the government should protect people from every possible negative occurrence they might get themselves into. That's not how "Freedom of Choice" works. "Freedom of Choice" allows people to consent to risks as long as they risk only their own person and property. It is none of the government's business if someone doesn't want to wear a seat belt or helmet. People should be allowed to do whatever they want with their person and property, as long as they don't physically harm the person or property of a non consenting other. I'm not disputing the fact that not wearing a seat belt or helmet is dangerous. I'm disputing the idea that the government should protect people from their own actions. It doesn't make sense to force people to wear seat belts or helmets regardless of how dangerous it may be not to because it doesn't physically harm the person or property of another.
Seatbelt and helmet laws should be abolished.

The government job ultimately is to protect their Citizens. So if they do not fufill seatbelt and helmet laws they are not fuffiling their job. Extend the bicyicle example that a lot of injuries are caused to the head WHILE WEARING HELMETS, imagine the damage without one. So my opponent is basically saying that the government should not care for the people of their country. Like if a child wants 20 pounds of candy the mother should say no beceause she knows what is best and the child obviously does not. And look to my previous example that wearing a seatbelt will double your chance of survival when in a crash Thank you vote NEG because we must protect our citizens