BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16

As for interest in politics, those not interested may not vote either, and the same case is for most adults. I know a person who spins a dice to choose who he votes for. He is about 45. Children are also very active on social media and would know about the current events from there. No candidate has try asserting the claim for no homework, for otherwise college students would have voted for him. Moreover, by the age of 15 we all know deleting homework is irrational, and we know we can't trust any politician. Lastly, detentions are useless as the child is required to sit idle for hours, rather than studying during that time. I support the removal of detention. As for corruption, children are harder to buy as they have a sense of justice which is not yet corrupted by the harsh world. Also, tattletales would report such incidents to the police, while adults usually fear the reciprocation after reporting. Even adults are not doing responsible voting, especially when I got to know Trump won in a few states. Children voting would have had a different outcome. Furthermore, 15 to 16 is relatively not a young age and are intelligent enough to make a wise vote.
Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16

There's a bunch of reasons why the voting age shouldn't be lowered The average 16 year old would be completely uninterested in politics and wouldn't even know the importance of voting. There are only a small minority of 15-16 who are interested in politics and want to help change their country. If the voting age was lowered to 15-16 then the kids would vote which one is "the cool one", also candidates could easily the vote from a child by promising to destroy homework or by making detentions illegal while on the other side that same candidate is about to make bad decisions for the country. Con states that "Children would be harder to buy" which is false. You could pay a child almost any amount to do something especially if it was just voting, the child would see that as writing on a piece of paper. Children are easily corrupted especially at a young age, this is why we shouldn't lower the voting age.
Voting age limit should be reduced to 15-16

Give your rebuttals in round 2 along with the opening argument. The voting age should be lowered as it would give a wider range of voters and give more free will to students. Wider range of voters Not all people in a country are even interested in politics, much less for voting. Furthermore, adults can be paid to vote, but children have a more idealistic sense and may be harder to corrupt. Children would be harder to buy as they haven't seen the real world yet, therefore believe that their vote matters and that they should be loyal towards their country in voting. Furthermore, as children don't earn money, they don't understand the difficulty of earning money and therefore would need more money for their vote to be bought. Free will Decisions of the political party severely impact teenagers, such as changes in the age limits of drinking, driving, gambling, and movies. Then why they don't have a right to choose their future?
Abortion Ought to be Legal

*shakes Con's hand* Now, onto business. Argument 1 Abortion ought be legal as a matter of public health. Regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, there will be those who will seek out abortions anyway. Abortions received in a clinical setting are much safer than other methods, as they are performed by and under the supervision of those in medical professions who know what they are doing and what to do in case of emergencies. Abortions performed at home, such as with coathangers or any of the various methods often used in the hopes of inducing a miscarriage (blows to the abdomen, intentionally eating foods one is meant to avoid during pregnancy, etc.), are done without this medical supervision and often in the absence of any medical knowledge by the pregnant woman. Safer abortions should be provided because it would minimize the amount of deaths and complications due to abortions. Argument 2 Abortion ought to be legal because it is the right of the woman. If we accept the premise that a human being is the owner of their own body (which we must if we're debating laws in the first place, because why would we tell someone what they can and can't do with something if they aren't in control of it anyway?), then that human being also has the right to decide what to do with his or her body. If a woman doesn't wish to be pregnant, she shouldn't be legally denied an abortion, because denial of that abortion would force her to make a choice that she doesn't want to and shouldn't have to.
Abortion Ought to be Legal

I would like to start by saying that it is very chivalrous of my opponent to tell the audience to not deduct points for missing the last round. Thank you for being the bigger man. Now on with the debate. i would like to start by citing the sources for which i obtained my information. The following link is the site where I got, "the utterly cruel way it is underdone. I heard that they take razor blades and cut the baby to pieces. if you have to kill something, especially an unborn life, you should do it swiftly without pain." http://www.abortionfacts.com... this site also offers other ways that abortion are underdone. The following site is a horrific and graphic depiction that my 11th grade science teacher showed us about abortion {WARNING: this video is a very graphic depiction of one form of abortion. Not all abortions are done this way. This video contains massive amounts of blood and is very GRAPHIC, HORRIFIC, and otherwise, NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH OR FAINT OF HEART. Please do not feel compelled to watch it for the sake of the debate.} http://www.abortionno.org... Moreover, if you watched that video you should now understand where I am coming from. now to make a counterargument to "Abortion ought to be legal because it is the right of the woman." and "that a human being is the owner of their own body" I would like to say that no one, especially not the intended mother, has the right to take away the life of their child, or any other child. After all, it is illegal to hit/abuse your child in any way. How exactly is abortion any different? your just killing your child before they have a chance to be born. That seems pretty abusive to me. I would also like to restate one of my previous points. "And this, of course, excludes rape. in which case it is the woman's decision. because she didn't choose to have sex." I think i just worded that poorly. What i meant to say was... And this, of course, excludes rape. in which case it is NOT the woman's decision. because she didn't choose to have sex. AND that the woman who has been raped has undergone a terrible trauma and injustice. In which case she does have the right to choose what to do with the baby. But even so, will an abortion help her? First of all, the abortion will not un-rape the woman. The tragedy has happened and nothing can change the past. Second, abortion brings a trauma of its own. To see abortion as a magic wand that brings relief but no pain is to ignore the pain of countless women who suffer for years and decades after abortion. RAPE is wrong because someone attacks the body of an innocent person. ABORTION is wrong for the same reason. That is why abortion should be rejected. information obtained at http://www.priestsforlife.org... That's my final argument. Let me just say that this debate has opened my eyes to a whole new take on abortion all together, and that you made very compelling arguments that even persuaded me. My opinion remains the same, but I now think more lightly of it.
Abortion Ought to be Legal

Well now I think that abortion is wrong because your taking away the babies chance to live before they even get to glance at the light of day. Most people who get abortions these days are those who go out having unprotected sex, and then take an abortion as the easy way out. Sex isn't free. The whole purpose of it is to make new life, not destroy one. And this, of course, excludes rape. in which case it is the woman's decision. because she didn't choose to have sex. No this is referring to the (pardon my language) skanky hoe-bags (of which there are PLENTY of at my school) but what i don't understand is they know sex will result in a baby. all they have to do is put on a condom to prevent it. yet they still choose not to because they know that abortion is the easy way out. The final reason why i don't like abortion is the utterly cruel way it is underdone. I heard that they take razor blades and cut the baby to pieces. if you have to kill something, especially an unborn life, you should do it swiftly without pain.
Resolved: Private corporations supporting gay rights should remain neutral instead.

Observation. While it is true that I have conceded my argument regarding the use of corporation in the resolution, I feel as though I should make it clear what I have and what I have not conceded. I have conceded my own argument that my opponent was employing inconsistent reasoning in arguing for the obligation of current corporations supporting gay rights. I have not conceded my refutations concerning the justification of gay marriage, utilitarianism, human rights, or of the sanctity of human life.Sub-C1. Second Class Citizenry.Regarding my argument against government recognition of marriage, I must emphasize that I was not supporting any moral norm or right not to be discriminated against (or any of the other unsubstantiated theories my opponent has argued). I was merely using my opponent's own reasoning against him. Throughout the debate he has argued that denying gay rights is an unjust form of discrimination. But under his conception I was able to show that the entire recognition of marriage by the government in the first place was unjust discrimination against non-married people (by forcing them to pay for benefits only incurred by married people). Therefore, my opponent's own reasoning was inconsistent since his purported aim of reducing unjust discrimination would only add more unjust discrimination into the mix. Of course, like I said, I think that this point is only of secondary importance anyways in regards to Sub-C2.Sub-C2. Negative Utility of Denial.My opponent never attempted to ground in evidence either the inherent sanctity of human life, the justification of utilitarianism or consequentialist ethics, or the existence of things we could call natural or human rights. His only argument was to claim that my own refutation employed these things as presuppositions within the argument, therefore I am being inconsistent in arguing against them. But as I iterated in my refutation of Sub-C1, I was not assuming their validity or truth. I was assuming them for the purpose of a reductio ad absurdum of my opponent's argument (which he only claimed didn't work without reasoning as to why) which he never properly refuted anyways.===Conclusion===My opponent's argument rested primarily on either the existence of natural human rights which were being violated by not recognizing them (since if they don't exist the argument that we ought to recognize them becomes incoherent) or on the justification of a consequentialist ethical outlook (so as to make his argument from negative utility of denial relevant and applicable). However, my opponent was never able to do this or even really attempted to do so. His only partial attempt was to claim that I assumed the validity of his ethical claims in arguing against SSM (which I showed was a misinterpretation of my point at length above). Since the actual existence of rights was never shown, my opponent has not been able to uphold the proposition that they should be supported by anyone.
Resolved: Private corporations supporting gay rights should remain neutral instead.

Observation Level: Well, considering that this is the final round of the debate, I only want to emphasize that my opponent has conceded to this part on my side of the debate, meaning that any previous argument made on this particular matter in the course of this debate should be disregarded in the decisions for the winner.Sub-point 1a: There really was no need to mention each and every single right. Gay rights can be used in general terms when addressing the arguments I made in the previous rounds. The only thing that I was pointing out is that although we're speaking to gay rights in general terms, my opponent only focuses on refuting two particular sets of gay rights. My opponent had provided a reason as to why marriage should not be recognized by the government at all, but even that was also just as ambiguous as his previous reasoning. Why are non-married persons being unjustly discriminated against? At what point is a person being unjustly discriminated? He won't be able to answer these questions considering that I won't have another round to respond to them, meaning that this point might as well be considered as a groundless argument. The fact that he condemns unjustified discrimination, however, shows us that he is supporting the ground reasoning that feeds into the main logic of this sub-point: unjustified discrimination is wrong. In this sub-point, I'm specifically trying to protect gays from this status of being someone less important or discriminated against, and I'm saying that the extension of gay rights needs to be done in order to prevent gays from being placed into this status of being a second-class citizen. My opponent tried to make my ethical arguments seem like moot, but in reality, his rebuttal just substantiated my sub-point.
Resolved: Private corporations supporting gay rights should remain neutral instead.

Observation level: My opponent states that I'm trying to further the gay rights cause with my case. Well...I can't argue with that. That's exactly what my case intends to do. However, the converse argument in this debate plans to argue that private corporations should remain neutral instead in the issue of gay rights, which would draw back the cause for gay rights in the future. These corporations could provide monetary and social support for the cause, but if they remain neutral instead, their position would be not to provide funds for either party. This is not to speak about the opposition to gay rights, where there are corporations such as Chick-Fil-A that provide funds to organizations that are against gay rights, including the National Organization of Marriage. What we have in the end are corporations who are against gay rights providing support and corporations who support it providing none if we go with my opponent's case. In the future, gay rights would be advanced in my case or the drive and support toward having them advanced would be maintained in my case. Definition of Gay Rights: The thing about my definition is that my opponent has already defined them. Judges, if you look back into the first round, you will see that my opponent explained what supporting gay rights would entail, and he seems to have furthered that definition when he explained in the second rebuttal. I said earlier that I accepted all of my opponents terms and definitions, including what he meant when he said what supporting gay rights would be. I'm not explaining anything ambiguous.CON Sub-point 1a: Again, I have accepted my opponent's definitions of what entails gay rights, including what he iterated in his Evidence 1.CON Sub-point 1b: The key words from my opponent's rebuttal are "...the scope of this debate will have the preservation of rights as a general value." This is where my opponent and I agree, but at the point where he's saying that this can't be argued from a utilitarian standpoint, that's where the disagree. Rights were meant to be preserved, as I argue, but rights themselves have a reason as to why they're defended. Rights themselves have a reason as to why they were created, and they weren't simply to acknowledge the inherent worth of a human being, but also to provide a rationale as to why not to commit atrocity and have negative effects results. Take for instance the human rights defined by the United Nations. They stemmed from ages of revolution in Europe after many atrocities commited by monarchial governments against the people and the negative conditions at which the people were subjected to. They were established as a document by the UN after World War II after seeing the massive atrocities committed by Hitler during the Holocaust. My main point here is that rights can have utilitarian reasons as to why they exist as well, and these utilitarian reasons only do the more to justify their existence. Henceforth, my angle at which I argue this sub-point is not by any means irrelevant.
Resolved: Private corporations supporting gay rights should remain neutral instead.

I will argue that neutrality and agnosticism are default positions and that there is no reason not to hold these positions without ample reasoning or obligation on the parts of those wishing for non-neutrality (whether Pro or Con). From this I will attempt to show that my opponent has not provided ample reasoning to change from the default position of neutrality. Now definitions, my opponent has not defined any terms so I will do so here. ===Definitions===Private corporations will be defined as businesses or companies who are run by private citizens and that are not controlled or operated by the government. To support "gay rights" will mean to put one's self on the side of various causes such as gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. while in order to not support "gay rights" one is putting themselves in opposition to such causes. Neutrality (or agnosticism) will mean that someone does not hold a strong opinion in any direction on a particular issue or chooses not to express those opinions for whatever reason. Should will mean that there is ample reason to do something or that a genuine obligation or duty has been shown making it necessary to do something.
Evolution is not part of atheism.

Despite common claims that evolution is simply preaching atheism, this is not the case. Evolution is a well established and evidenced theory which explains the progression, form, organization, and distribution of all the life on this planet without the need of any outside forces. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God. There were plenty of atheists before Darwinian evolution became widely known and easily properly understood as the mechanism for the design of life. While there is some congruity between having a firm and robust theory which allows us to understand all life on the planet without needing to genuflect to God and not believing in God. They are completely different. Ken Miller: Ken Miller is a theist and a world class biologist who fully understands evolution. Raelians: Raelians are a religious group who believe that aliens created Earth and the life on this planet. They don't believe in God and thus are atheists while they believe in creationisms and often deny the basic science behind evolution. Without overlap between the two it seems remarkably hard to show that evolution is part of atheism. Further, atheism is only a lack of belief in God giving it a total of 0 claims needing to be accepted by all atheists for them to be atheists. With zero claims and evolution being one claim, it's once again a nearly impossible argument to make.
Convince me that eating meat is evil

You're saying our mouths are made for eating.... That's like saying our hands are made for murder, and our mouths are made for swearing. The fact that you enjoy killing an animal has no purpose in this debate. How can you say animals don't have souls? You can't just neglect the argument and state that... Give me details. Sure, foreign countries have taboos in which they eat domesticated animals, but that doesn't make it right to be able to eat an animal... I am my own person, and I believe meat is evil, foreign countries are not influential to my opinion.
Convince me that eating meat is evil

Nature is animals eating other animals. We are just another animal. Our mouths are literally made for eating meat and herbs. Animals were meant to be eaten. And here in America it might not be normal to eat a dog or a cat but in other countries it is, and in some countries cows are considered sacred but here we have them for milk, meat, and clothing. And also, animals don't have souls. Religiously speaking it would then be a sin to kill an animal. Eating meat is not evil because it is a part of nature and it doesn't ever hurt anyone. I am not ashamed of eating meat, in fact, I enjoy hunting down a deer, killing it, gutting it, skinning it, harvesting its meat and cooking it up.
Convince me that eating meat is evil

Meat itself isn't evil. Eating it is. Eating the flesh of a live animal is like eating it's soul. You wouldn't eat your pet would you? So why eat a cow? Or a pig? They can be used for other things. Cows for their milk, Pigs for wallowing and churning the mud, chickens for their eggs, etc. Eating them however, is unethical. You should be ashamed!
Obama is hope for the US

Stem Cell Research Obama is correct that he can't determine when life begins and neither can anyone else for that matter. So on that matter, no one can chose if an unborn child is more important than the mothers. All research is being banned in regards to stem cell research just not embryonic. You don't feel that this is going to put Americans at a disadvantage? Even with embryonic research, it is impossible for it to develop into a child. Money Hungry Yes, Obama is considered wealthy as are all politians. The difference between him and McCain, is Obama will run this country in regards to the general public not the few wealthy. With Obama as president, the education problem your high school is having will be solved. The reason for the education problem is the fact that the federal government doesn't really care. They let the local governments do what ever they want with few restrictions. Adding money does help as long as it is governed right which currently it is not. War Opponent stated: "Iraq was ruled by a rogue who had long pursued the clandestine acquisition of weapons of mass destruction; used biochemical weapons against his own citizens and neighbors; perpetrated horrific human rights atrocities; attacked Iran and invaded and annexed Kuwait; and defied the UN for 13 years." - Ramesh Thakur If this is true then why isn't the US in Darfur? There is genocide there happening right now worse than the Holocaust? But yet the US has said they will not interfere. So if the government is claming they are helping them just out of the kindness of their heart then why aren't we helping these people who are being killed by the masses. I assure you, this war has personal agenda behind it. Questions I have noticed my opponent has not said anything about taxes, abortion, and universal health care. What are your positions on these very important issues? McCain McCain will follow in Bushes footsteps who has clearly walked our country down the wrong path. And now McCain has even mad more bad choices with his vice president Palin. How can a woman with 5 small children, one being an infant still, have time to put our country first? Along with that, she has misguided her own child (in regards to her pregnant 17 daughter). How can we not expect that she will misguide us as well?