BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
US Voters should be required to show a form of ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote

Basically, I challenge you to show me why requiring voter proof is wrong after looking at the list: 1)Want to legally buy alcohol? you need to be 21, so prove you're 21 (that's OK) 2)Want to go to this school district? you need to live here, so prove you live here (that's OK) 3)Want to legally buy a gun? You need ID and permit that allows you to have guns, so show those proofs (that's OK) 4)Want to leave the country? you need a passport so we can clear you, so show one (that's OK) **5) Want to legally vote? you need to be a citizen, so prove you're a citizen (OH NO, that's not right. That's voter manipulation, you're putting minorities down etc.)? I admit some forms of ID I listed do not prove citizenship, but they all boil down to proving the same basic idea: the holder is legally allowed to do something. Proof of age shows that the holder is legally allowed to buy alcohol, proof of residence shows the holder is legally allowed attend the school district, get the library card etc. Driver's License shows that the holder is legally allowed to drive a car. Different requirements, same premise. Why shouldn't we require proof that a person is legally allowed to vote? Your argument that "what we should be focused on is other types of ..." does not answer that question. There will always be other things to worry about. Yet, this problem went so court, so people(elected and non-elected) thought this problem was worth discussing. If there is a problem (you admit there is small voter fraud) where the fix is as simple as bring your passport or some other proof of citizenship with you when you vote, why shouldn't it be fixed? Small problem, simple fix. You make it sound like checking ID at the polls is a tedious task that will require much effort. Tell me, how long does it really take to look at a passport photo and see if it matches the person holding it. It could be done in less time than it takes the person to sign his or her name.
US Voters should be required to show a form of ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote

To start with your argument, you list that the following things need ID1. Alcohol2. Driving3. Firearms4. Lottery Tickets5. Library Cards6. Schools 1. To purchase alcohol you do not need a citizen you just need something to show that you are old enough. The purpose of the ID for alcohol is completely different.2. To drive you do not need to be a citizen in the US to get a driver license.[1]Driving is something that requires skill to not crash and kill a bunch ofpeople, so the effects of driving without proper training and regulations ismore clearly seen and could be more of an issue.3. Firearms- see the #2 but replace driving and alcohol with guns and hunting.Also Firearms may be protected by the constitution, but gun violence is a bigproblem in our nation while voter fraud is not.4. Lottery tickets- Irrelevant. I will say no more on this sub-topic5. Library Cards- Now this is more in depth. Libraries are public services butfor many places you don't need to be a citizen to get a card or use itsservices, only a long term resident. I talked to my local librarian; you justneed proof of residency. (DOES NOT INCLUDE PHOTOS OR EXTREME REGULATION)[2] 6. For schools you need to prove that you are here legally, not a US citizen.Exchange students, people whose parents have work visas, people with educationvisas. You don't need special citizen only ID to go to school, just proof thatyou are here legally.Now on to the more relevant topicsA very simple response to my points is that all of these things require ID.Perhaps not extreme IDs that can be hard for people to get, but IDs nonetheless.I would say in response that in this country redistricting, propaganda anddisenfranchisement [3] should be more of an issue to voters than the small number of actual voter fraud by non-citizens. [4] To this I say that in Minnesota therehave been 10 cases of voter fraud since Bush ran for president the second time untilObama ran in 2012. Voter fraud is such a minor issue. What we should be more focused on is other types of voter fraud, ones done by citizens who could go out and submit their one vote commit fraud instead. Also the thing that most influences the elections is what happens before the vote. Instead of wasting time and effort stopping about 200 people nationwide who are non citizens from voting what we should focus on is propaganda and redistricting which more destroy the integrity of the vote than non-citizens who vote.Many problems can only be done by legal voters [5] [1]. http://www.nh.gov......(this is only New Hampshire but the laws are about the same in every otherstate. In some states certain residents can't get drivers licenses) [2] http://www.bpl.org......;http://www.umtownship.org......;- This applies to all of PA (a big voting ID law state)[3] http://en.wikipedia.org......; http://en.wikipedia.org......If you say Wikipedia is not reliable I will cry.[4] http://www.minnpost.com...... READ THIS Article- It's very interesting.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org......
US Voters should be required to show a form of ID or proof of citizenship in order to vote

I'll start off by listing things that require ID in the US. You need ID to drive, to buy alcohol, to buy lottery tickets, get library cards, enroll in school, and of course to buy firearms. Why should voting be any different? What is the purpose of making it citizens only, when all you need to do is walk in and be able to sign your name? A parent wants to enroll a kindergartner in school, they need to show birth certificate to show their child meets the cut-off birth date. You want to leave the country on vacation, you need to show a passport. But, you want to help choose leaders for 300 million people, sure walk right in. Just because voter fraud is not a serious issue does not change the fact that it is illogical to make voting a "citizens only" right, and not verify a voter is a citizen. You need some form of ID to do some of the most trivial things, such as getting a library card. Is library card fraud a big issue? If you are going to start with a rights v. privileges argument, right to bear arms, yet you still need to show ID and proof of residence to legally purchase a firearm. To legally vote, why is it wrong to ask for ID?
Public gyms ought to be forced to admit overweight children for free

The first thing I would like to say, is that the one thing both Sides can agree on is that Child Obesity is a very serious issue, and all institutions must work together to solve this. My First Contention: Many Obese children cannot afford a gym membership There is a definitive link between a child growing up in a financially needy household and a child being obese. This can be from many reasons such as a parent cannot afford healthy food or to enroll the child in sports programs. Fast-food is very cheap to buy and usually finds itself a way into being a major aspect of the childs diet. While it is true that running around the block doesn't cost a penny, I believe that open gym membership is a fair and more efficient way to accommodate needy overweight children. It is societies duty to stick up for the needy and that's what this debate is really about. My second Contention: Obese Children need motivation to exercise Even if they can afford it, many of the cake-scoffers use a costly gym membership as an excuse not to go. They would rather spend it on pudding and butter. If we relieve the cost of a membership, they will have no excuse not to go, and they will be forced to by their parents. So all-in-all making gym memberships free will be a significant blow against childhood obesity, the black plague of North America. One last note, we may hear a lot about the companies themselves from Con, but remember, because of poverty and an excuse not to go, not many obese children go to gyms, so making it free will not be a significant blow the the gym itself. In fact, when the child becomes more healthy and active, he will probably buy a membership to continue doing so, therefore this is good for the gym itself.
Public gyms ought to be forced to admit overweight children for free

Pardon if I seem brief or informal here, I won't have another opportunity to post my argument, and I'm a little pressed for time. I would take a bit more time with this, but my schedule is going to be weird for the next couple of days. I'll just put my arguments in two chunks, I apologize in advance if this results in a lack of clarity. Rebuilding my position: Exercise is important, but I still maintain that diet is more so. While not such a person myself, advocates of a vegan lifestyle show that simply eating healthier can, minimally complemented by exercise, result in significant reductions in weight. What goes in your mouth makes you fat, but it can also make you thinner. Encouraging going to the gym in such a significant fashion is a poor allocation of resources and effort. Both extreme obesity and its opposite result in psychological strains on children, and the crowd one runs across at a gym, if not the availability of free gym facilities, will encourage extreme muscles and so forth. Simply diverting resources towards healthier eating will result in a trend towards a more "normal" population. Also, going by conventional methods of gauging obesity such as the BMI label only slightly overweight people as obese, so there's potential for this system to be abused. Rebuttals: There is a strong likelihood that this will fail to benefit the target, the lower class. Lower class children often are forced to start working at a very young age in order to supplement the family income. This is a simple reality, which I have seen evidenced in my personal life. Simple lack of time will result in a lower percentage of lower class citizens taking advantage of this, and in higher percentages of those who can already afford gym memberships taking advantage of this. Furthermore, one can't really make the general population want to exercise, in the same way you can't make them give to charity. Both are the right thing to do, but nobody really wants to do either. Thanks for the debate, opponent person.
The Argument from Desire is a sound argument.

I apologize if my statement about the desires vagueness came off offensively. That was not my intention. More accurately, I simply found Pros later description to be much more clear than Peter Kreefts description. Also, I do not need to show any of the premises as untrue. Showing that the conclusion given is not the most logical conclusion, or that the premises do not apply to the desire in question, is enough to render the argument unsound. Argument 1: The fallacy of selective observation most certainly applies. [1] If the fact that the objects to satisfy our natural desires can all be found within our natural environment were actually irrelevant, it would have no effect on the argument when included. To better illustrate the effect it does have, I'll put it in the form of a proper syllogism. P1: Every natural, innate desire corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. P2 : These objects can all be found within our natural environment, which is Earth. P3: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. Conclusion: Such a desire is not a natural, innate desire. This conclusion is much more appropriate than either conclusion offered by Pro. That is, the conclusion originally included in the argument for desire, or the conclusion that we were created for another world. However, such a desire could be a supernatural, innate desire. Additional premises would be needed to rule that out, but we don't know enough about the supernatural to make those premises. Argument 2: This argument actually applies to the whole of the argument for desire. It did, however, originate with the first premise. I simply left it there in favor of keeping the debate easy to follow. That the desire in question is a supernatural desire logically follows. Given that a desires type corresponds to the object which satisfies it:A natural desire is a desire satisfied by a natural object. And an artificial desire is a desire satisfied by an artificial object. A supernatural desire would then be a desire satisfied by a supernatural object. As the object in question is a supernatural object, the desire it satisfies must be a supernatural desire. Argument 3 and comment: Dropped. Argument 4: "Rather, in order for this desire to be fulfilled, all other desires must be fulfilled. " - ProThis opens up two very big problems. In this case, the desire in question is not fulfilled by an object, but by other desires. As such, by the first premise, it is not a natural, innate desire, because those all have an object to fulfill them. The same problem arises with the conclusion. According to the conclusion, there must be an object to satisfy it, which is in direct contradiction to this statement. Exception Argument: I believe that this argument applies, but it seems to be unnecessary at this point, so I will still leave it for the readers to decide. In Closing:There is so much wrong with the argument for desire that I'm not even going to attempt to summarize it all. I will simply say that the argument for desire is not sound. Sources:[1] . http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
The Argument from Desire is a sound argument.

I have re-instituted this debate because the last person who accepted is someone that I have no idea if he/she will even follow through. As such, I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you wish to take me up on it, please leave a comment. I'm not very picky on whom I debate, I just want to be confident that you will follow through and finish the debate. Most people on this site are familiar with the more popular arguments for God's existence, the cosmological arguments, teleological argument, moral argument, and ontological argument. However, I would like to try out another argument which may not be as familiar to the debaters here, the Argument from Desire. I will give the argument in this round, even though this round will be strictly for acceptance. I will defend the argument in the next round. The Argument from Desire I will be defending will be the argument as formulated by Peter Kreeft: Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. [1] Round 1 -- acceptance only. Round 2 -- opening arguments/rebuttals. Round 3 -- rebuttals. Round 4 -- rebuttals/closing statements. I look forward to an interesting debate. [1] http://www.peterkreeft.com...
The Legal Driving Age Should Not be 14

At the end of my opponent's argument, her quote from livestrong stated that, "This can be avoided by teaching your teen to drive beforehand so that she or he is comfortable with it when the time comes". May I remind everyone that the affirmative side is arguing that 14-year-olds should not be allowed to drive legally. Whether or not their parents or guardians help teach them is up to them. In fact, it is actually beneficial for teens and parents are possibly the most important part of a teenager's journey in learning how to drive. According to Toyota Motor Sales Inc. in a 2012 survey involving 5,500 young drivers and their parents, teenagers are more likely to do something they think their parents do while driving, for example; looking for something, write directions down, and dealing with passenger issues. Parents are very important role models for teens as they learn how to drive. It is important for teenagers to have at least a year or two of driving practice under their belts before getting their licences, however, if the legal driving age is lowered to 14, that would mean a child would have to start learning at the ages of 12 or 13, barely even teenagers. As stated before by Rochester University, the brain isn't fully developed until the age 25. My opponent stated that a some people living in poverty themselves do not have drivers licences, and while that statement is true, "getting a job" is not the answer. According to Henry Grabar from Slate, a magazine company that covers current events, politics, and American culture, in a 2017 article, a man named Shane Moon, a construction worker, ended up homeless after getting his drivers licence suspended. Moon was having a hard time paying all of his bills and taking care of his pregnant girlfriend, he eventually had to let his car insurance lapse but ended up getting fined as that is against the law in Michigan. One thing led to another and now that Moon was without a licence, he made considerably less money and became homeless. As is seen with Moon's story, tragic events such as these are uncontrollable in the lives of many, and "getting a job" is not that simple of a solution and is inapplicable to those like Moon. In conclusion, not only is getting a permit or licence incredibly difficult for those under 18, especially if they come from low income families, but it is also important for the safety of the young drivers and anyone else on the road if the legal driving ages stayed the same. Parents do have the freedom to begin teaching their children whenever they please, but they must be mindful of what they teach them and be a good example of what a responsible driver is like. With that being said, the legal driving age should not be 14. http://www.wnd.com... https://slate.com...
The Legal Driving Age Should Not be 14

While some teens do have jobs, these numbers have actually been declining. According to Derek Thompson from The Atlantic in a 2017 article, "In the summer of 1978, 60 percent of teens were working or looking for work. Last summer, just 35 percent were". These numbers have been decreasing due to the fact that teens have been more focused on their education. In the same article by Derek Thompson, " The percent of recent high-school graduates enrolled in college has grown by 25 percentage points. That is almost exactly the decline in the teenage labor-force participation rate". What exactly would be the point of lowering the age to get a permit if less teens are getting jobs? Secondly, some families can't afford the costs of drivers ed. According to Cars Direct in 2013, "...between $30 and $180. Actual road training runs between $50 and $150 per session. Most driving schools offer an all-inclusive package between $200 and $800". These costs can seem extremely high for low-income families. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, around 21%-43% of children in the U.S. live in poverty or come from low-income families. For some of these families, it would be difficult to scrape up enough money to afford classes for a teen who wishes to drive. Speaking of low-income families, how can they afford a car for their teen? According to Greg Gardner from USAToday in a 2015 article, the average price of a used car is $15,900. If even a used car costs that much, and certain families can not afford the costs of drivers ed, there'd be no way for a teen to use a car to go to school, practices, a job, or any other place if they do not have a car to use. https://www.theatlantic.com... https://www.carsdirect.com... http://www.nccp.org... https://www.usatoday.com...
The Legal Driving Age Should Not be 14

Many people have argued that the driving age should be lowered to ages as low as fourteen-years-old, however, due to their immaturity, underdeveloped minds, and the lethal consequences they face, the legal driving age should not be fourteen. Adolescents are immature, while some may be more mature than others, it does not change the fact that most teenagers are immature. For example, according to Guardchild, a software company, in a survey they did within the past 10 years,"56% of teenagers admit to talking on their phone while driving and 13% admit to texting while driving". To further support the claim, in the same survey done by Guardchild, "21% of fatal car crashes involving teenagers between 16 and 19 were the result of phone usage. This result has been expected to grow as much as 4% every year". With the rates of teenage phone usage while driving and fatal car crashes already so high, and expecting to increase every year, these rates are likely to be even higher if the legal driving age was reduced. Now that death rates have been mentioned, this leads into the next claim, the lethal consequences. According to Allstate, in an article they published in 2012, driving accidents are the leading cause of death for people under the age of 14, with more than 4,000 deaths every year. Even worse is that the younger the driver, the higher the risk of them getting in a fatal accident is. This is supported by a list published by CBS News on the most dangerous states for teen drivers, South Dakota, which has the lowest age to get a restricted licence, at 14 and 6 month, has a teen driver death rate 149% higher than the national average. On the other hand, according to WalletHub's Top 10 Best & Worst States for Teen Drivers, New Jersey, which has the highest age to get a restricted licence at age 17, is ranked within the top 10 best states for teen drivers. Finally, adolescents' brains are not as developed as the brain of an adult. According to the Medical Center at Rochester University, the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25. The Medical Center at Rochester University also stated that adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgement and considers long-term effects, while teenagers think with the amygdala, the emotional part of the brain. With adolescents more likely to be emotional and make irrational and sudden decisions based on emotion, giving them a position behind the wheel would not be foolish, but dangerous as well. https://www.guardchild.com... https://blog.allstate.com... https://www.cbsnews.com... https://wallethub.com... https://www.urmc.rochester.edu...