BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise.

A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise. I present evidence: (MAJOR) [The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician] [Is An Accurate Interpretation.] (MINOR) [I, Tyler, am arguing that the below argument and the equivalent title] [make up a valid syllogism.] Note: I have divided the major and minor premises into subjects and assertions, of which this debate is based, in opposition to subject and predicates. Whoever accepts this 3rd debate is acknowledging that categorical syllogisms are insufficient (in-themselves) and may not concede this fact within their thesis. It is recommended to read both debates fully, including the comments section, and take into incorporation the existent video by the Preachatician, as this is what the subjectivity of this debate is on.
This House Supports Teen Dating*!

Thanks Con. =Con’s Framing= Con has attempted to frame the debate in terms of productivity, which strongly implies the following argument: P1) This house should support Teen Dating if and only if (iff) Teen Dating is Productive P2) Teen Dating is unproductive C) This house should not support Teen Dating The biggest problem with this is the key term ‘productive’ has been left undefined by Con, thus has been left ambiguous as to what would qualify as ‘productive’. It could imply financial benefit, economical benefit, emotional benefit, etc. Therefore under this ambiguous definition, it can be easily conceived that each of my 4 contentions would qualify as ‘productive’ *EVEN IF* we accepted the presupposition within premise 1. However I would also like to challenge the assumed premise 1, of which some variation Con MUST affirm in order for his arguments to be valid, so failing to support this means all his arguments collapse. Why should we support teen dating if and only if it is productive> A very straightforward counterpoint is when arguing for human rights, it can easily be argued that certain actions within human rights are not for the overall benefit of society (or productive) for example free speech, but still be supported nonetheless. That is because we value having autonomy over our speech over the unproductive, or negatively productive consequences that free speech may entail. Similarly, even if teen dating was unproductive, or negatively productive, we still have grounds to support it as it grants teens autonomy over their choices, and autonomy to being able to act on their thoughts, emotions, and will. The only grounds upon which we probably should not support certain actions is if the negative consequences (be is productivity, or whatever) strongly outweighs the implications of reduced autonomy or increased constraint on the populus =Neg Case= The Psychological Harm Con has yet to present any arguments here. Hence I will wait for Con to provide them next round. Back to Con!
This House Supports Teen Dating*!

Shalom Alecium! I thank Envisage for accepting this debate!IntroductionThis is a rather important issue which I feel has been neglected in recent years. I did not specify the terms because I wanted to give the Proposition its right. To begin lets discuss the burden of proof: in this resolution the onus rests entirely on Envisage. It is he who is affirming the resolution, and supporting to show that teen dating has a high productivity. In the end this is what this debate will boil down to, Envisage has to show that teen dating has a high productivity and should be supported while I only need to show that this is not always the case. In this debate I will be providing citations by their reference names. Studies are given specific names, usually it is the name of the chief author, followed by the year. If anyone wants the full name they can Google the reference name, or ask me and I can send them a private message.I think that one part of the resolution my opponent absolutely ignored is the part of the "terms and conditions". Here it was made clear that teen dating will include, for the purpose of this debate, some sort of sexual/erotic action. I define this as sexual stimuli will be a part of the transactional stimuli exchanged by the two parties. This ranges from kissing, to engaging in coitus. I will lastly, as per the rules, only use this round for positive material. The Psychological Harm There is much for which we should thank Eric Berne, and Levi-Strauss. One of these is the Cost-Benefit Matrix Social Theory. This theory states that all human actions are fundamentally ruled by certain analysis that the human brain does. We are good because it makes us feel good about ourselves, gives us a sense of superiority, or gains us stimuli. Similarly we do acts, especially in adolescense based on this form of theory. In the case of sexual activity in teenagers let us base it on a risk factor (Werner, and Smith 1982). A risk factor is a certain condition which increases the chance of teenagers engaging in sexual activity. "Among girls with no risk factor it was found that only 1% engaged in sexual activity, in comparison to 22% of those with two risk factors, 50% with those who had four, and 86% with those with 8 or more risk factors." (S. Small, and T. Luster 1994)The most common risk factor for girls was a lack of a male parental figure, while in males it was having an absusive or negligent mother figure. (O' Beirne 1994) Other common risk factors were poverty, popularity sensitivity (a condition where popular people seem to be trapped in the norms which they thought they made), low self-esteem, difficulty in school, and lack of close friends. These studies used 2100, and 2200 teenagers of all backgrounds (hetero/homo/black/white/hispanic etc.). In fact t
This House Supports Teen Dating*!

Shalom Alecium! Resolved: This House Supports Teen Dating*!*Here it is implied that this is more than just a romantic relationship, there is some form of sexual contact such as kissing, close hugging, fondling, et cetera. Holding hands, or lightly hugging will not be counted as sexual activity. Even a light kiss may be counted as sexual activity. 1. My opponent will start immediately, and will only write 'no round as agreed upon' or something similar in the last round. 2. The first argument rounds are for positive material only. This debate should focus on whether erotic relationships should be held by teenagers. Anything from kissing to sexual contact counts.
Students should have possibility to select in which lessons they can attend. (17-18 years old)

It's really a shame that my opponent couldn't finish the debate. To conclude my debate. I am still believe that students shouldn't the possibility to select what subject they want to learn for three main reasons. My first reason is that study every subject will make students have a wider knowledge and appreciate the world more. Also, you can make a connection between subjects to further your understanding and real life application. My opponent argues that you won't be best at every subject if you study everything. No one expects you to be a master at every subject. You just need to learn it to pass it since this is high school. You're not studying for a degree. My second reason is stress isn't a part of the problem in studying. High school programs are designed so students would have time for clubs and everything. Students should be able to set up a schedule for themselves for studying. My third reasons is studying every subject will widen the students possibilities in the future. Most students don't have a clear image of what they really want to study so they don't know what to take. Study every subject will give them a broader experience of what they really enjoy learning and give them a higher possibilities of choosing the right major. This is the end of the debate. I thanks my opponent for the debate even though it's a shame he couldn't finish it.
Students should have possibility to select in which lessons they can attend. (17-18 years old)

I think you need to put quotation mark if you were to quote my argument. "Students will have way more time for lessons which they like, which are important for them future. For example if you are studying Maths, you do not need subjects like Arts, Geography, History or something like that. So you will have even more time for subject which you want." If you're talking in term of junior and senior years of high school. You do realize that when choosing a major. Many credits of different subjects are needed to be able to get a degree of the major. For example, to earn a degree in Computer Science, you need to take Math as well as Physic and a couple of other subject in order to graduate. "People who taking part in a lot different activities often do not achieve anything in any specific activity." This is not necessary true. Many jobs in the future would require you to engage in many different activity a day and people do achieve a lot from it. Your argument is merely an excuse for people to refuse taking many subject since they're lazy. "My second argument is that students would have less stress, when you have to study 10 or more subjects, that make you fell stress. You do not understand one subject, spend time for understanding that subject, when you spend a lot time on some subject you get some miss understand from other subjects. And that goes like magic circle all over and over again." High school program are designed so that students would only engage in 8 subjects per quarter. Only 6 out of the 8 subjects are required and the other 2 are probably electives. Also, no one expects you to be a master at all 8 subjects. You do not need to spend 5 hours on each subject to pass it. In addition to that, the information on each subject do not contradict the others; they support each others. Also, stress is primarily is a student's personal problem since high school program are not meant to be heavy. They do not force you to read 20 pages of textbook every night. If a student is serious about studying, he/she should be able to plan out a schedule for studying without any stress. "My third argument is that free attendance would increase students responsibility. They have to select in which subjects they want to go and do not miss important lessons. That would grow students responsibility before going to university, they would integrate into university learning style more easily." Attendance means you going to class. Free attendance would means a student is free to attend class whenever they want. This does not increase students responsibility. Most of them would just not be attending class at all. Some students would think that the information in class is not necessary for their future so they will just choose not to go to class. Also, by being a junior or a senior in high school doesn't mean you have a clear vision. Even though you did take 10 years of math or science, it is merely the basic knowledge. You don't start taking calculus or logarithmic until you're in university. And it is impossible to cover all the science in a mere 10 years.
Students should have possibility to select in which lessons they can attend. (17-18 years old)

I'm also new on DDO so I'm looking forward to a fair and clean debate. In the resolve, we're talking about students who're 17-18 years old so I'll assume that we're in a high school period. My first argument is that the purpose of making students studying every subject is to make them understand and appreciate the world more. You can not argue that any subject is useless to a person. If you're studying Math, you can still need to study Arts or Geography to further your understanding as well as real life application. Every subject correlates to one another so you can always make a connection between subjects. My second argument is that it's not the education system's fault if a student feels stressful about studying. Schools nowadays have been reformed so many times to not make study a hard burden thing and time manageable whether you're attending a private or a public school. A student should be responsible for their study time. If they're cramming 4 or 5 different subjects at the last minute. It would be their fault for not prepare beforehand. My third argument is that studying every subject would widen the student's possibilities. Most students do not have a clear image of where they want to go or what to take. Taking a bit of every subject will ensure that every students have a chance of taking something new and will have a higher possibility of choosing the right major in universities or colleges. (An out of context question, are we doing the refutation on round 2 and conclusion on round 3?)
Students should have possibility to select in which lessons they can attend. (17-18 years old)

Students will have way more time for lessons which they like, which are important for them future. For example if you are studying Maths, you do not need subjects like Arts, Geography, History or something like that. So you will have even more time for subject which you want. People who taking part in a lot different activities often do not achieve anything in any specific activity. My second argument is that students would have less stress, when you have to study 10 or more subjects, that make you fell stress. You do not understand one subject, spend time for understanding that subject, when you spend a lot time on some subject you get some miss understand from other subjects. And that goes like magic circle all over and over again. My third argument is that free attendance would increase students responsibility. They have to select in which subjects they want to go and do not miss important lessons. That would grow students responsibility before going to university, they would integrate into university learning style more easily. I am new at debates, feel free to say any critic for me, I would love to receive critic.
Obama has done a good job of leading America

1) In retort to what my opponent posted as his argument, Obama spent $62 billion in American taxpayer money in bailing out General Motors. However, letting GM go bankrupt would have also saved the industry and millions of jobs, but without the $62 billion of taxpayer money to one company. Bankruptcy would have forced management to change, and for money to spent smarter and more conservatively. Obama did save 100,000 jobs, but he did this temporarily. Not forcing them to change the ways they run GM will only lead them down the same path. 2) My opponent also mentioned making Bush torture policies illegal He failed to mention the fact that these torture methods were used to obtain information on the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden. Without these, we would not have killed Osama Bin Laden. 3) North Korea and Iran are serious threats to our way of life yet, Obama has done nothing to stop them. Both of these countries threaten our allies, and are close to achieving nuclear weapons.
Obama has done a good job of leading America

3. Expanded Health Coverage for Children: He signed 2009 Children"s Health Insurance Authorization Act, which allows the Children"s Health Insurance Program to cover health care for 4 million more children, paid for by a tax increase on tobacco products. 4. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, he injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. 5. Reversed Bush Torture Policies: Two days after taking office, nullified Bush-era rulings that had allowed detainees in U.S. custody to undergo certain "enhanced" interrogation techniques considered inhumane under the Geneva Conventions. Also released the secret Bush legal rulings supporting the use of these techniques.
Obama has done a good job of leading America

The health care reform act, in fact has destroyed our health care system. The average premium of health care has risen by $3000. Thus, defeating the purpose of the bill to lower the cost of premiums by $2500. This has only hurt families who now have to pay more for, "affordable health care." This act also forces all citizens to buy healthcare. This mandate included in the bill threatens taxes to those who have not bought a form of health care. My opponent has also brought up the death of Osama Bin Laden. This is not the doing of President Obama. The American citizens, who risk their lives for our freedom in the military daily, killed Bin Laden. To say that Obama did this is ridiculous. Please give credit where credit is deserved.
Obama has done a good job of leading America

1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act. It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America"s long-term fiscal problems. 2. Eliminated Osama Bin Laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.
Obama has done a good job of leading America

In 2008, America hit a recession of effects that have not been seen since the Great Depression. President Obama came into office telling us to have hope in our future. He has failed to give America a reason for hope after four years of his presidency. I would like to begin with economics. Unemployment is currently at 7.7%, however, in 2009, the White House projected the unemployment rate to be 6% with the stimulus package. Wrong, Mr. President. His wasteful spending on green-energy companies that don't hire American workers, such as Girasolar, is absurd. Wasting billions of taxpayer's money on scams like solyndra is idiotic. Foreign policy is also an area where Obama lacks. His handling of the massacre in Benghazi is deplorable. You can not trust local militias, instead of our own marines, to protect an embassy. As a result of his mistake, four are dead, including an ambassador. Many other reasons such as, North Korea, will be shown to prove that we are worse off now. Heritage.com
Fortnite is better than Players Unknown Battleground

Now this is a story all about how My life got flipped turned upside down And I'd like to take a minute, just sit right there I'll tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel-Air In West Philadelphia, born and raised On the playground is where I spent most of my days Chillin' out, maxin', relaxin' all cool And all shootin' some b-ball outside of the school When a couple of guys who were up to no good Started makin' trouble in my neighborhood I got in one little fight and my mom got scared And said "You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air" I begged and pleaded with her day after day But she packed my suitcase and sent me on my way She gave me a kiss and then she gave me my ticket I put my Walkman on and said "I might as well kick it" First class, yo, this is bad Drinkin' orange juice out of a champagne glass Is this what the people of Bel-Air livin' like? Hmmm, this might be all right But wait, I hear they're prissy, bourgeois, and all that Is this the type of place that they just sent this cool cat? I don't think so, I'll see when I get there I hope they're prepared for the Prince of Bel-Air Well, uh, the plane landed and when I came out There was a dude looked like a cop standin' there with my name out I ain't tryin' to get arrested yet, I just got here I sprang with the quickness like lightning, disappeared I whistled for a cab and when it came near The license plate said 'Fresh' and it had dice in the mirror If anything I could say that this cab was rare But I thought "Nah, forget it, yo holmes, to Bel-Air!" I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8 And I yelled to the cabbie "Yo holmes, smell ya later" Looked at my kingdom, I was finally there To sit on my throne as the Prince of Bel-Air
Nothing truly lasts forever.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics contradicts your hypothesis that energy will continue to exist (and are you trying to assert that energy will continue to exist without space and time?). And again, this assertion is based on purely naturalistic/materialistic assumptions (i.e. apart from God). Thank you for the discussion; I must address the reason i discuss with you is not to win an argument, but attempt to open your mind to the existence of a Creator, and lead you to the Christ. For we are sinners. But the merciful God sent his Son to die on the cross to save us from our sins, and was resurrected three days later - making forgiveness and salvation possible. If we put our faith in Christ and his saving work for us, we will be saved. And the primary gift we are given at salvation is God himself; for ultimate satisfaction and supreme happiness is found in God alone through Christ alone. Forever, all because of Christ Jesus, we can enjoy God and bring glory to him. For as Piper says, 'God is most glorified when we are most satisfied in him'. We are saved by the grace of God alone through faith alone in Christ alone.Thank you for the discussion; a pleasure speaking with you.
Nothing truly lasts forever.

I concede the debate commenter @tfroitz1 is correct. After doing some research on the big crunch, and all the top hypothesis's on the end of the universe. I agree with them and that of a lot of other researchers. The current top hypothesis for the end of nearly all means the energy in this universe will still exist, and because of that fails my side of the topic. (I will send the omni paradoxes *"(info on them and my thoughts,)" to you in a message later I'm currently busy with work and Christmas shopping ,etc.)
Nothing truly lasts forever.

I. To comment on your tangent on the Christian God (i.e. concerning the three "omnis"), I would need a specific example how they are supposedly contradicting, rather than a baseless assertion. II. I"m curious as to how you conclude if an afterlife exists, it most likely doesn"t involve God. If you are asking me: "What if there is an afterlife without God?" I would actually have to agree with you; due to me believing the afterlife exists because God wills it, I cannot believe in one apart from him - hence, i do not believe in an afterlife without the Deity involved. III. "Will you just die [. . .] after finding out [. . .]?" What do you mean "finding out"? If there is no afterlife, we never will figure out, for after death we would cease to exist - remembering absolutely nothing. IV. I understand now that you wanted to focus on this physical universe, but of course, the topic was "Nothing truly lasts for ever", and so, I took everything into account (e.g. God). Just to know your position, if God exists, do you believe it possible that he can exist forever (i.e. no beginning, no end)? Or do you believe this isn"t possible, even for God?
Nothing truly lasts forever.

I was planning on sticking with stuff of the natural realm, but sure lets go with your train of thought "what about something beyond the natural?" I find god specifically the one your talking about to be tantamount to fiction. Mostly because the three omni's (I.E. Omnipotence) used when describing him/her are paradoxes therefore making such being existing contradictory to what we know. That aside this isn't an argument on the existence of god, but more on if anything can last forever. So the subject of god aside say they're is an afterlife (likely one that doesn't have a god) ,can we say for certain that said afterlife will last forever or once you die are you still the same being from that universe? Will you just die eventually there even after finding out said realm doesn't have entropy?