BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The elderly need an Age of Consent for sexual activity

For excuse my English. It is not my second language. I claim nothing but to be a Fool 1-One bold assertion is as good as the next. 2-Since you make a positive claim the burden prove is upon you. 3-To speak of need is a suggest necessary condition 4-This puts you in a position to show entailment. 5-But you speak of moral principles C-So it is an impossible claim Principle of Charity: -You must mean should instead of Need. "In the US, the Age of Consent for sexual activity ranges from 14-18. In Europe, it ranges from 13-16. This law protects minors from the consequences of the physiological and psychological power imbalance of having sexual relationships with adults." The Fool, Based on the information given you have given we should think that people who have physiological and psychological power imbalance should have age of consent. And this is popular with children. But this application tends to pertain to younger people because we consider we consider them to have a undeveloped mind. But even that would not defendable without having to resort to dogmatism or faith principle (Faith principles need not be religious) in the sense that in the past, many young woman marry older men. We may say something like we know better now. But there has been no demonstrated only in bold assertion, or agreement, how could this be more knowledge? If the moon was made of cheese and we all vote made that it is make of cookie and punish people for saying it is cheese. It is still made of cheese; we just call it a cookie. But what is is or A=A A Declaration is exactly that declaration with a Capital D. The D doesn't add realness or truthfulness, we would be making Declaration any time we want. Make sure to be clear that I am not arguing for pedophilia (Sophist like to build straw men) Bad rather I am saying that something should not be done when it is morally wrong. But sex in itself is not morally wrong by itself or for anybody; it is harm that is the morally wrong part. The case of older persons is much different. As people get old they lose their freedom naturally, their licence, there vision, their hearing, family, friends, and spouse, taking the freedom to choose if they want do such things or not is to take away their last piece of humanity. There may be small risks, but as you say I don't think doctors with MD's are likely to want to do anything like that. So such a change is minimal to you have to lack to trust for people. But similarly we may drive and crash. That question is that is the freedom to drive worth the risk? Of course Old age appears more gross when you are young but such grossness becomes conditioned more or less with familiarly. But that doesn't mean it's not a fair trade. We can't take our money with us. And If I am a 75yrs lonely man with a chance to have companionship with a young woman then that would be worth more than all the money in the world. Even the belief in companionship is better than nothing. Therefore there should not be and age of consent for sex with the old. The Fool on The Hill…..
The elderly need an Age of Consent for sexual activity

Consent is defined as: permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; http://dictionary.reference.com... Coercion is defined as: the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance. http://dictionary.reference.com... In the US, the Age of Consent for sexual activity ranges from 14-18. In Europe, it ranges from 13-16. This law protects minors from the consequences of the physiological and psychological power imbalance of having sexual relationships with adults. However, such a power imbalance is not exclusive to minors, and applies equally to elderly people, who have a weak physical and mental capacity when compared to young and middle-aged adults. For example, a 70-year-old man would be intimidated about the prospect of denying a 50-year-old woman's advances. It is well-known that many young and middle-aged woman seek manipulative relationships with elderly men in order to receive an entitlement in their wills (such exploitative behavior is the only reason anyone would want to have sex with an old person, anyway). Therefore, politicians must establish an Age of Consent for elderly people that everyone will one day qualify for. I suggest the Age of Consent should vary according to different states and countries to reflect local beliefs and standards in post-maturity. For example, the District of Columbia could have an Age of Consent at 75, whereas a more conservative place like Utah could have an Age of Consent at 65. After all, the Age of Consent is 18 in California, and 14 in the District of Columbia. In the interests of the public good, arbitrary distinctions over capacities should be ignored in order to safeguard the majority of elderly people, who are vulnerable and post-mature. In addition, only politicians can objectively measure and safeguard their dignity for them. This is true in the case of the Age of Consent for minors. No study has ever investigated their capacity to give consent to being touched in a particular area of their body, nor would it need to, because politicians already know that minors are immediately traumatized by such consensual touching. Instead, the studies logically derive their conclusions by putting the victims of rape and statutory rape in the same category, based on the definition of statutory rape in their jurisdiction. This is not the case when such touching occurs accidentally in wrestling, however, or when parents aggressively beat their children on their bums. Likewise, there should be exemptions for the elderly when they visit the doctor, require the services of a TSA agent, or need to be beaten by their children - the only people who could know what is best for them, due to the genes they share (and the fact that they just love their parents!) If a 35-year-old woman dares to so much as touch a 70-year-old man on his genitalia without a license from the government, she should be locked up in prison where there's plenty of power-imbalanced touching for her to enjoy!
Zapdos is better than Mewtwo

All debates are serious. ï¿½ï¿½ I'm afraid Pro's attempts to invalidate the majority of my evidence by appealing to only the original games is clearly desperate. He has conceded my entire case, leaving only this plea in place of an actual argument. There is no reason to discount the sequel games, as they are equally cannon. As are the movies, which are endorsed by the same company and show insight into the legendaries at hand. He has provided no adequate refutations in his last round, all my arguments remain valid. Vote CON. Mewtwo: Ice Beam attack! Zapdos: GRARGHH! (faint...) Mewtwo wins!
Zapdos is better than Mewtwo

I underestimated your seriousness in this debate. Can we keep this on the level of say.... pokemon red, for GameBoy Color? Rock smash and rock climb don't exist in that game. Also, mewtwo cannot fly in any of them (no matter what he does in the movies) Anyways, I was talking about in terms of when they were introduced. The new pokemon have ruined the series :(
Zapdos is better than Mewtwo

Pro points out that Zapdos can learn Fly. Well, Mewtwo can learn Strength, Rock Smash and Rock Climb so Zapdos clearly doesn't have the advantage here. Zapdos is weak to Rock and ice types, leaving it vulnerable to some of the most powerful pokemon in the Game, for instance, Tyranitar, Hippowdon and Mamoswine. There are no comparable Bug or Shadow types to deal with. Mewtwo is evil for most of the First Movie, but later realises the error of his ways and builds a sanctuary for Pokemon, so he turns out to be a good guy in the end. In the movies Mewtwo can also fly, so Zapdos has no such advantage. Also, he can pin pokemon in place using his psychic abilities. Mewtwo can also produce a shield to protect himself, while Zapdos would take the brunt of Mewtwo's shadowball and Psychic attacks. Mewtwo would easily win in battle. In the games, Mewtwo has 100 more stat points [1] [2] meaning he outclasses Zapdos by quite a bit. As previously noted, Mewtwo is considered an Uber, in the same class as other legendaries like Girantia and Lugia. Zapdos, as well as the other legendary bird, have failed to reach that level. Zapdos simply less useful to have on your team. [1] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon) [2] http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net...(Pok%C3%A9mon)
Zapdos is better than Mewtwo

Zapdos has practical uses, and is compatible with HMs like Fly. Also, mewtwo has weaknesses against bug, shadow, and ghost pokemon. All of which are easily handled by the electric type. Aside from water, what weaknesses does Zapdos have? Mewtwo is also evil. I would say that that is a negative. Zapdos, being simply a wild pokemon, has no such thoughts. Zapdos is obedient to trainers, and can easily outmaneuver mewtwo in battle, via the fly technique. Zapdos also has the power of paralyzation. In terms of education, Mewtwo wins. In a battle, Zapdos. In terms of usefullness, Zapdos.
Zapdos is better than Mewtwo

Okay then, I will. Mewtwo is a higher level in the game, is in the Uber category in pokemon battling while zapdos is only in Over-used [1] [2], he has more plot significance in the movies and is generally considered more powerful. Also, he can talk using his physic abilities while Zapdos can only screech inarticulately. [1] http://www.smogon.com... [2] http://www.smogon.com...
stem cell reserch should not be elegal

Thank you, datboygrant, for starting this debate. First, to offer definitions: Stem cell research: The research of stem cells, as detailed here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Legal: "conforming to or permitted by law or established rules" http://www.merriam-webster.com... Note: As my opponent's case seems to be against stem cell research, the best interpretation of the resolution seems to be, "Stem cell research should not be legal." "you could say that the people who reserch stem cells are trying to play god." Well, if God gives us the power to manipulate stem cells for science, it's probably another tool given to us to advance ourselves. "there are two parts of stem cells .one embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells,but today im going to focus on embryonic stem cells." Well, I'm going to focus on placental stem cells [1]. My opponent's case is largely against stem cell research as a result of abortion. I agree that abortion should be illegal; however, this still leaves placental stem cell research, which should not be illegal. My opponent argues that government should not fund stem cell research. I agree. He then argues that small corporations do not have enough money to fund stem cell research. However, if nobody's ever going to have enough money to fund stem cell research, then what's the point in making it illegal? That just makes the law books a little bit thicker, killing a few more trees in the process. Let's save paper and not bother illegalizing stem cell research. Let private corporations research placental stem cells if they can get the money. In conclusion, illegalizing abortion will result in placental stem cell research, which there is absolutely no point in making illegal. Good luck. 1. http://stemcellumbilicalcordblood.com...
stem cell reserch should not be elegal

stem cell reserch should be elegal for the simple fact of the matter is that it is wrong.you could say that the people who reserch stem cells are trying to play god.there are two parts of stem cells .one embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells,but today im going to focus on embryonic stem cells.these are cells taken from a female wich are unborn babies and is used to cure parts of the body wene someone becomes ill.this is apsolutly wrong because with doing this you are actually killing unborn babies therfore elimanating the chance for that baby to live, grow up and have a life. also stem cell research is extremely expensive.so the question to that is were are we going to get the money in the first place.there are two options,one we could pay a higher tax,or small corparations would pay for it.well i dont know about you but i dont think that everyone in america wants to pay higher taxes wene we are in a economic depresion.then we come to the topic that small businesses would pay but those are only a few businesses and not enough to pay for it,plus we need to worry about our economy and stop werying about killing babies for reserch.thank you
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a lie to get us into the Vietnam War

I ask however that everyone know that we are not debating wether or not JFK was assassinated by the US government/associates and that incident, regardless of wether or not it is true or false, has no impact on wether or not the Gulf of Tonkin (GoT from here on out) was a false flag attack. As long as my opponent accepts this and we both refrain from making any such arguments related to the JFK assassination in this debate then we are 100% go. However. Since my opponent has already made some comment to this issue I feel inclined to briefly counter what he has already said somewhat. Yes it is true that when LBJ took office one of the first things he started working on was the issue of Vietnam. Regardless of wether or not the whole JFK thing is true or not, at the time LBJ took office Vietnam was one of the nations most important if not THE most important issue the nation currently had. Is it really so surprising that when he took office one of the first things he worked on was the most important issue going on at the time? That would be like saying that had George W. Bush been killed during the September 11th attacks and the first thing Dick Cheney did was have a meeting about 9/11 that there must have been some government conspiracy to kill Bush so that Cheney could rule and invade Iraq. Sounds ridicules right. Could it have simply been a coincidence. Perhaps. Perhaps not. The reader can decide. Anyway good luck to my opponent and let's have a goodn.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a lie to get us into the Vietnam War

It has been confirmed by the Secretary of Defense at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin that the event did not happen. Also, isn't it ironic that JFK, who didn't want to go to war in Vietnam, was assassinated in a pretty obvious conspiracy. Then, as we all know LBJ, took over and guess what his first meeting was as president. It was over Vietnam. I can hardly see how this is debatable because the Secretary of Defense even admitted the event never occurred.
What is more important humanity as a whole, or parts of humanity (individuals)

We are talking about humanity here so nature must be put into this equation. Nature is defined as the natural world around human beings. The importance of something is defined as the amount of purpose it has in the natural world. For example, lets take a car. A car allows human beings to travel from place to place in short period of time. As a whole a car works. But, if you take parts from the car the parts cannot serve any purpose and therefore, are not important. Eventually, nature will destroy the part. Now, let's take humanity. Together humanity creates many innovative ideas all in their own respective fields but, if you move all human beings away from each other than humanity will die out. Apart, humanity cannot serve a purpose (reproduction, innovation of ideas, etc. ) therefore, an individual serves no purpose. A human beings meaning in life is to advance the human race and allow for its survival. Together this is possible; apart nobody can do so.
There are Sound Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of Allah

= = = = Debate Guidlines = = = = This debate is about the philosophical arguments for the existence of Allah which Muslims worship. I will be arguing that there are sound arguments for the existence of Allah outside and inside of the Quran. My opponent must also bring forth arguments against the existence of Allah (mimimum at least a general monotheistic God). This is a straightforward debate, no semantics please. = = = = Why is God called Allah in Islam? = = = = The name Allah is much better title then that of God which most people use today. The name Allah reflects some of the attributes of a true monotheistic God , because the name Allah is neither masculine nor feminine and cannot be pluralized. The name Allah a pure arabic word. However, the name God can be changed to Gods or Goddesses which is unbeffiting of Allah (God). Regarding the definition of Allah (Also fits general concept of God, monotheism) , I will use Surah Al Ikhlas in the Quran: ==Surah Al Ikhlas Chapter 112 Verses 1-4== “Say: He is Allah, the One and Only. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.” Also I (and if my opponent uses) will be using Abdullah Yusuf Ali's interpretation of the Quran so that the interpretations of verses either me or my opponent use aren't twisted to suit our goals but so that the usage of the verses are more truthful and objective in nature even though Ali's interpretation may be flawed (as all are). One can find all the chapters of the Quran by changing the number in the URL. For example the URL for chapter 2 of the Quran is: http://scholaris.com... and the URL is for Chapter 7 of the Quran is: http://scholaris.com... The only difference between the chapters are the numbers, one is 002 (for chapter 2) and the other 007 (for chapter 7). = = = = = Debate Format = = = = = 1. First Round is for acceptance only 2. Opening Arguments 3. Rebuttals/Arguments 4. Closing statements/Rebuttals If my opponent accepts the debate, he accepts all the conditions and definitions outlined in this round. If he accepts than violates any of the rules and conditions I have stated, points should be awarded to me. If my opponent wants any clarifications, please address before accepting, No semantics.
skin care naretian

I have accepted troll not ever dabete for until then. This it my first time @1ofthese. Is this even debate, or is debit card? Is not real matter. I think avon skin narton is beta because it is not ancient heal, because ancient technology does work not good. Just like no one use Iphone 1 no more anytime now. And also me think thay fresh food is bad because can food is bad too, but it is kind of fresh but just frozen in can. It is not good but also not very bad because frozen vegggi tables and fruit is more good for you and not even lie! My plates are made of green juice too and thrre missing now so you stole them and not what I like because steal is sin you know tat right you can go to Hell and that like jail forever and hot like oven and microwave. I don't think Dan is ancient magic because magic is a one hit wonder woman band and there wasn't any other song from them bee's side (why have you gots to be that mean?'. Eye don't for sure know but Avon and mary kay are the gooder ones but fountain of youth makeup better. Thank you. I hand debt to the other #1. Ha Pee!
skin care naretian

I know that there's ancient healing with Dan in that in not hell law info and on so I'm you totally wrong then wouldn"t you right in with me irony trolley rose Irate told Iraq for a long time I was mad about it for a long time and what I right about now practice now is anywhere between a 60-40 diet 280 22i so sixty percent of my plate or death you know green juice and not just think about like just the plate I'm doing this to three times a day and in Queens million me in a lot of foods I and so that the balance that I go towards now and that makes me feel a lot better really boost my immune system gives me a lot of energy when I'm in a path a pattern where and traveling a lot I'm eating a lot of cooked food even though its peak in food I said he really exhausted and I know many of you feel that way every you played with that have you anybody played with the well besides traveling but just when you not getting any fresh food. http://www.tripleeffectseyeserum.org...
Adolph_Hitler_Rules is an idiot.

1) LOL! Strawman fallacy. I never said we both were idiots. I said that you would also be an idiot according to your pitiful logic. By the way, you misspelled the following words in your reply: Yours. Capitalize. Courtesy. Piece. For. Themselves. So this isn't just a grammatical issue on your part. LOL! Me? I know errors are bound to happen which is why I don't use them as a reason to call someone an idiot. 2. I don't assume it. I know it to be fact. If I wanted to, I could create a dozen email addresses and then create a dozen accounts on this site. I could then use these accounts to "vote" for all of my arguments and against the arguments of the people I don't like. 3. Yes, I'm sorry that you've never heard of a person named "Adolph Hitler Rules" in real life. It is a good thing everyone has there user names for names in real life. LOL! Did you honestly just say that? 4. You don't know what I look like, you don't know what I think, and you certainly don't know how I live my life. You're just an adolescent child who wass out of his league before this little rave of yours even began. You lose. Now get off my Internet.
Adolph_Hitler_Rules is an idiot.

1. According to you'r argument, we both have traces of idiocies, I didn't capatalize my username, boo hoo, but your username shows an irony in my opinion. Being Jewish, hitler is worse than a dog, worse than anything I can imagine, so therefore he isn't allowed the courtsey of a capitalized name, you took it another step and spelled it wrong! So your name is stupid because it praises and degrades his horrible name, and in case you're wondering, greenriver8 isn't capatalized because it's faster to type, not because of a disrespect for me... kinda. 2. You assume that cheating is possible on this website, well show me this is possible, maybe inviting all my friends to vote? Well I have no friends registered on debate.org, so that's ruled out. 3. You can't compare your self to Albert Einstein because he had special circumstances and abilities/disabilities that you don't have because otherwise I would have heard of you, and I wouldn't have started this debate :). Now I'm just wondering, but was he a real big fan of the whole nazi thing? PS I think you're an ugly peice of slime, you have no justification for believing that hitler was just, right, moral, or had half a brain for trying to exterminate a great people, and Jews standing up forthemselves is proof that hitler lost.
Adolph_Hitler_Rules is an idiot.

#1. Strawman fallacy. I never said that the topic was about your username. I said that by your same logic, you'd be an idiot too since it breaks one of the laws of our language. My username was created on a whim too, so what applies to me must apply to you as well. #2. Strawman fallacy. Who said I was a cheater? I said cheating was possible, thus negating the credibility of my past debates. You obviously have horrible reading comprehension as I suggested nothing that would give you a reason to counter by claiming that I have no papers to show that I am idiot. #3. Syllogism form of your argument: 1) greenriver8 doesn't know anyone as outspoken as Adolph Hitler Rules. 2) Therefore, Adolph Hitler Rules must be lying about his age. This is an obvious non sequitur. Thank you for helping me flesh out that point. You lose. Try again? Yes | (No) *insert another coin*
Adolph_Hitler_Rules is an idiot.

1. The topic isn't about me or my user name, your username suggests that you don't know how to spell hitler's name, since you respect him highly (as shown in past debates), then you would owe the courtesy to spell his name right. My username was created on a whim, a lack or creativity if you will. 2. It's hard to believe that you are a cheater on this website when you've lost all of your debates. You have no papers shown to say that you're not an idiot, nor do I, such 'papers' I don't believe exist. 3. It's easy for me to assume that you're lying about your age, since I don't know anyone as outspoken as you being so old (52 is old to me, I'm 15). I don't think this is the easiest debate you've ever won, because you have yet to win one.