BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
western museums should agree to requests to repatriate cultural artefacts

Museums are here so we can learn about cultures other than our own and how these cultures have engaged. To send fabulous collections to the country they were made in might seem like a nice thing to do but for reasons of education, source competition and international relations our museums should stay as they are. We learn about wars, historical society, and technological advances simply by hearing the story of a vase from the East. We learn about how different cultures clashed or merged to create the new world we see around us today. It's this cultural understanding that is so important in Western societies because most Western countries are now home to people from all over the world and stigma is a major problem. If we only show Western history then we promote western supremacist ideals because we only show one side of the story. History is about the interactions of societies and if we don't portray this in our museums we threaten to further marginalize those who have emigrated to our western countries by not displaying their cultures historical value beside our own. By keeping our museums diverse we show our respect for other cultures which western societies have a reputation for harming. We show that we are proud of the diversities within our countries and encourage better relations with other countries and cultures. Our museums are a dying art with the Internet muscling it's way in but they are still of valuable information and learning. Artefacts form old eras in countries far away have a special charm to them. People like them and they can get as close as possible to them in museums. They entice a lot of people to come and visit museums and to explore the different cultures. By keeping our museums diverse, we keep them open, show our pride of our national diversity and promote cultural understanding improving international relations. By making our museums culturally homogeneous we promote segregation and marginalize cultures which is dangerous in our society.
western museums should agree to requests to repatriate cultural artefacts

If you want to get better at debating you have to try and do more than one round. Debating is about rebuttal and defending your arguments which cannot be done in one round. I'll explain how this will work before I give any definitions. The second round will be for presenting your arguments and the third round will be for rebuttal and a short case summation. In the third round I would urge you not to bring in new evidence or points. museum: a building in which objects of historical, scientific, artistic, or cultural interest are stored and exhibited. repatriate:send something back to it's country of origin. artefacts:an object made by a human being, typically an item of cultural or historical interest. If you chose to accept this debate, which I hope you will, and I haven't explained anything properly put it in the comments section and I'll adjust it. F
should the US hold back on helping other Country until they fix it self

Since my opponent forfeited, I don't have much to go off of... Anyway, my point is this: Yes, we have issues. The U.S. isn't perfect - I think we can all agree on that. But nobody's perfect and some countries need help. The U.S. is the most powerful country today and it has the ability to assist other nations. Again, we have a lot of issues but so does everyone else. I like to look at Grenada... They are a small island nation that was being attacked by an evil military coup. The U.S. intervened and helped them and today the Grenadines hold a celebration day to thank the U.S. for its efforts. So, in conclusion, the U.S. is not perfect - but no country is. The U.S. has the ability to help other nations and spread American ideas throughout the world. I believe that the U.S. should continue to do this. Thanks!
should the US hold back on helping other Country until they fix it self

sorry i didn't post what was wrong with U.S. I have been away. Here are the more thing wrong other then the ones u stated: NSA that can see everything we send if we cant trust are self's then how can we trust other Country. the U.S. had to shut down from are debt. We need to fixed the government the nation government is taking over the state governments rights. We need to stop giving money to other governments that will not give it back. We need to trad not give that way we get something out of it. Its not just are responsibility we are just one of the powers of the world. We need to stop having thees "War". We never declared war. We may never be perfect but we could be allot closer to it then we are now.
should the US hold back on helping other Country until they fix it self

Hello! Since my opponent forfeited, I will quickly lay out a case. First, I asked him what things the U.S. needs to fix. He didn't respond. There are many things wrong with America. Unemployment, abortion, debt... As bad as these things are, every country has similar issues. After all, no one is perfect. The thing that the U.S. does have is resources and an army capable of assisting other nations. I see no reason not to help other countries if we have the resources to do so. Another reason why my opponent is wrong is because of the way he wrote the resolution. He is purporting that the U.S. can only help other countries if it has no issues to fix. This is impossible because nobody's perfect, much less an entire country. The U.S. undeniably has problems, but so does all the other counties in the world. However, the U.S. undeniably has the resources to assist other nations. Why should they have to "fix itself" before helping others? Thanks!
The Legal Driving Age SHOULD be raised to 18.

So you agree that if the legal age limit was raised to 18, 18-19 year olds would account for the most accidents, but still less than 16-17 year olds. Please explain your logic behind that assertion. Also if the age is raised to 18, who is going to be teaching these young, barely adults how to drive? If they are away in college or moved out in general working full time, how are they going to receive proper driver training. Let me take a stab at what your answer will be. Have the government reach deeper into our pockets by establishing driver training courses at the expense of taxpayers. Solving problems by creating more of them, our government is very good at that. The fact is the same arguments you make about 16 and 17 year olds acting immature behind the wheel can be applied the same way to 18 and 19 year olds. I know many 16 and 17 year olds that are more mature for their age than 18-20 year olds. The problem is age is not the best precedent to set. Unfortunately, you have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Part of the experience of maturing as a teenager is learning how to drive. I would argue by not giving a 16 year old the opportunity to learn to drive, you are depriving that kid the opportunity to mature into the phases of young adulthood. Driving helps give teens a sense of responsibility. They will need this responsibility when they enter adulthood or they will be left behind because they have been pampered their whole life. If teenage vehicle accidents are such a problem, why don't states make tougher requirements to pass a drivers exam rather than raise the age? Accordingly, I have more faith in the parents across the country rather than the government. I think the parents will do a better job at judging whether or not their child is responsible enough to drive than any level of government.
The Legal Driving Age SHOULD be raised to 18.

I agree that 18 to 20 year old people would still have the most car crashes if the legal driving age was bumped up to 18. However I am almost certain it would still be less than 16 to 17 year olds. It isn't always because of inexperience that car drivers get into crashes, because you're certainly not going to get your licence until you know how to drive a car correctly. I'd also like to point out that not all 18 year olds drink, and even a larger percentage don't drink and drive. There may be several that do drink and drive, however these people are the same ones that would get into car crashes regardless. With less 16 and 17 year olds on the road, I can guarantee the amount of car crashes would be reduced. New drivers are sometimes the most cautious drives, but only if they have enough experience to know driving can be dangerous. 2 years would give them plenty of time to learn new life experiences. On another note, if 16 and 17 year olds couldn't drive there would be a major reduction in the amount of green house gasses produced, which although it wouldn't stop global warming and pollution it would sure help.
The Legal Driving Age SHOULD be raised to 18.

Thank you Karoz for choosing to debate me on this issue. For starters let me say that, yes I believe the legal driving age should be 16. You stated that the age group of 16-20 account for the most accidents, and that 16 and 17 year olds make up the bulk of those accidents. I believe that to be accurate, however I feel the biggest reason 16 and 17 year olds account for so many accidents is lack of driving experience. If you changed the legal age to 18 and 2 years later compared statistics on vehicle accidents, you would see 18 and 19 year olds accounting for most accidents. Physically, there can be no argument made as to why the driving age should be raised because there are no additional motor skills gained between age 16 to 18. Karoz, you state that 16 and 17 year olds are more prone to immaturity and that is the cause of accidents. Unfortunately, their is no data or study to back up that assertion. I would argue the opposite. I think 18 and 19 year olds would be more prone to add the element of underage drinking to driving. Not saying 16 and 17 year olds do not drink, but more widely available for 18 to 19 year olds in college. Finally, here is what I believe to be my strongest argument. Parents. Parents have control of whether or not their children can even attempt to get their license and whether or not their child has access to a vehicle. I feel the best approach is to let the parents decide whether or not their child is adequately prepared for driving at age 16. There is no ultimatum that they must allow their 16 year old child to drive. Ultimately, I feel no matter what the minimum age there will always be a high rate of collisions among new and inexperienced drivers. Thank you.
The Legal Driving Age SHOULD be raised to 18.

I live in British Columbia where the driving age is 16. I am not sure of the driving age in all of the Provinces/States across North America, so I will assume you disagree with the driving age being moved up from 16 to 18(Correct me if you're talking about moving it up from 14 or whatever. So I know we're on the same page.). Every year thousands of teenagers DIE in car crashes across North America. That is not counting the massive amount of teenager related car crashes without fatalities, which are insanely high. Statistics show that people age 16-20 have more car crashes than any other age span. With 16 and 17 year olds at the heavier end. Of course the majority of teenagers involved in car crashes are male, there is also still a high percentage of females as well. Most teenagers just aren't mature enough to handle driving a car as they tend to treat cars more like toys or video games. Most car crashes could easily be avoided, but are caused by teenagers showing off or down right disregarding the safety of themselves and others because of their "It will never happen to me" mentality. While only 2 years pass from 16 to 18, most 18 year olds are incredibly more responsible than 16 year olds and are less likely to "goof off" while driving. One of the major reasons is because hormones aren't as rampant in an 18 year old as they are in a 16 year old. It is for this reason and several others that the legal driving age should be bumped up to 18.
The Amazing Spiderman 2

There is no way that you can say that there is a lack of eminent threat. Besides the fact that Electro can bring New York City to its knees, and besides the fact that the Green Goblin is a villain to be reckoned with in future films as well, Oscorp is a huge threat. They are a mega corporation that can do basically anything it wants, and it will create anything that will help it bring the world to its knees in the future. The villains in Amazing Spiderman 2 are just the tip of the iceberg, and it igves us a scary look at what certain companies might be doing in real life behind our backs. (Also, Spiderman's entire personal life is destroyed thanks to the villains, so I'd say that's pretty threatening.)
The Amazing Spiderman 2

RebuttleI wouldn't classify it as senseless action either, because there was no action. It has movie elements of other genres yes, but not from the big blockbuster superhero movies we love. There is no comparison between the action in this movie and Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier, which was released previously this year. Captain America was leaps and bounds ahead of Spiderman. It was able to carry a good plot along with providing us with the heartpounding action we so desire. The worst thing that happens in New York in Spiderman 2 is all the lights go out. The lack of emminent threat really holds this movie back. There is no urgency to the plot and I felt it was stretched too far. I was really looking forward to a better executed movie.
The Amazing Spiderman 2

Yes it was I thought the Amazing Spiderman 2 was the best Spiderman movie that has ever been made. The way that it is directed puts it far and above all previous Spiderman movies, because it isn't just about senseless action, and the superhero himself. It has elements of almost every kind of movie genre that you can think of. The action scenes were remarkable, and the visual effects were second to none. Dane DeHaan in particular does a great job as Harry Osborn, as he shows Harry's gradual descent into rage and madness very vividly. Andrew Garfield finds the balance of humor, joy, and maturity he needs to fully realize himself as Spiderman. He did a tremendous job. Emma Stone was awesome as usual, and she and Garfield's chemistry is amazing. The ending was played out so well, and the scene showing Peter at Gwen's gravesite throughout every season is so poignant and sad. I loved every minute of this movie, and the only complaint I have is the music that Electro makes as he bounces Spiderman around on the energy towers. All in all, it was a masterpiece of a film, in my opinion.
The Amazing Spiderman 2

Opening Argument:The Secret Life of an American SuperheroIf you are a teenage girl, Twilight fan, or both, you would probably enjoy this soap opera of a movie that is The Amazing Spiderman 2. I compare this movie to the TV show on ABC Family, "The Secret Life of an American Teenager". I walked into the movie theater expecting to see an action packed superhero extravaganza and instead I got a two hour sob story from multiple characters. "Oh my father died" or "Oh my girlfriend died". Maybe if Petey kept his promise to Gwen's father she would still be alive. The two action scenes, the one at the beginning with the stolen Oscorp truck and the one at the end Electro vs. Spiderman, were alright although there were very cheezy effects. I mean can someone explain the electronic/dubstep song created by Electro as he struck those electric poles? Completely unnecessary. The only people who would enjoy this terribly executed movie are the teenage girl Twilight- fans. Emurr18 your opinion is way off. Top 5 worst movie of the year. It is hard to mess up a superhero movie but they did. Not even the sweet hair of Andrew Garfield could save this movie.
NY is WAY better than NJ

Just as NY has very dangerous areas of living, so do all other states including Jersey. Jersey has Paterson, Camden, and Newark, NJ as some of the highest crime rates that we've seen in the NY Metro Area. Also, regarding cabs, yes they are pricey, but that is only within NYC. Cabs outside of NYC are rather cheap. I lived in Yonkers, NY at a time in my life and frequently took cabs there late at night to get around if it was passed like midnight since no buses were running. I took it from my house to the mall which was approximately 5 miles away and yet it only cost me $6 to go that far of a distance. So, when looking at cab prices, you should take all of NY into consideration. Actually, NY has public transportation all over. We have buses and trains all over NY. We have the Metro North on both the east and west side of NY and we have trains and buses that go up to Buffalo and Delaware. The Greyhound bus terminal is stationed in NYC and will take you just about anywhere around the country you need to go. We also have two of the best airports to fly out of that compared to Newark airport are far nicer, LaGuardia and JFK Airport. When it comes to culture, NY is actually more accepting of multicultural families and communities as we have our own Little Mexicos, Little Italies, Chinatown, etc. Also, regarding diversity, we were one of the first states to legalize gay marriage which is why the community of homosexuality, trans-gender, lesbian, bi-sexual, etc. is far greater in NY state then NJ. Actually NJ has worse rates regarding teen pregnancy. They have a 68% pregnancy rate compared to a national average of about 70%. The NJ pregnancy rate is actually higher than the AIDS rate of 67.4% which to me is simply a bit outrageous. http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org... My opponent makes good claims for his rebuttals, However, he lacks the proper sourcing to back up his numbers. If you are going to quote statistics, I suggest that you cite a source please so that we know the numbers aren't simply made up. Thank You. Regarding education, NY actually has amazing schools of education. In an array of article we see that NY colleges and universities are among the top percentile in the country regarding prestige. http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...
NY is WAY better than NJ

Your point on New York City having lower fares and faster transportation is in fact invalid. New York City cabs in fact charges a much higher rate on average than anywhere else on the eastern seaboard and in fact tourists are given lots of advice when traveling to the city to take the subway or just walk the blocks as appose to the taxi cabs. The Hoboken train station along with Newark Penn Station in Newark, New Jersey and Secaucus exchange churns out trains to every section of New Jersey at an incredibly fast rate. Most major cities have a form of light rail which is a small train that for the same fare u would take a bus takes you around in a faster more efficient manner. NJ Transit is comparable in size to its New York City counterpart and the local "immigrant buses" as they are commonly referred to which are of course a form of none state appointed transportation run as frequently here in New Jersey as they do in New York although NYC does have nice sights it also has a very high crime rate, in fact the five boroughs Queens, Bronx, Manhattan, Brooklyn, with the exception of Staten Island are some of the not so safest places to live and or visit in the whole of the state of New York. When one speaks about New York one must speak of New York as a whole not just New York City. It is no secret that after you leave the hustle and bustle of New York City the surrounding areas are mainly countryside and the argument for transportation falls short unlike in New Jersey where transportation is great state wide. New York City is only a small slice of the much bigger pie known as New York State. When speaking about cultural diversity one needs to look no further than Hudson County in New Jersey deemed one of the most culturally diverse places in the United States. Jersey City being the most diverse city on the eastern seaboard. Hoboken is a Mecca of art and music that rivals any area of New York, It has several art galleries and studios and a wide array of fashion shops. In fact Hoboken is often regarded as one of the trendiest cities in New Jersey. Education in New Jersey is far more the best and is ranked one of the best states in the USA that has a high percentage of students that graduate high school and move forward in there education and attend college. New York has a very high drop out rate opposed to New Jersey. The drop out rate is much higher there because students feel more compelled to go out and party then to go to school and get an education. The pregnancy rate in the New York school system is at about 65 percent. The average female student ends up getting pregnant and dropping out of school due to the pregnancy and never returning. The drug rate in New York is much higher than in New Jersey you have much more people smuggling drugs into New York than in New Jersey. I would also have to say that New Jersey streets are much more cleaner than New York. In New York people just throw there trash on the ground in New Jersey we have trash cans basically all over the place so we do not litter as much as New York does.
NY is WAY better than NJ

There are many reasons why I feel that NY is a better state then NJ. They are listed as follows: C1: New York is the central location for making the most money in fashion, the arts, and music on the east coast. Most people right out of college as arts major can seek job opportunities from the city and get more out of their degrees then people in New Jersey who are art majors. Most people who are art majors in Jersey aspire to work in NYC as well. C2: We have more accessible and easy ways of transportation. We have beeline buses, more inexpensive taxis, subways, and trains. NJ has trains, buses and expensive cabs for transportation. However, they do not run as often as NYC trains and buses. Ours come more often than those in NJ. Also, our transportation takes us rather far for our money and we can travel 2 ï¿½ hours on the bus doing a bunch of transfers and only pay $2.25 for it. In New Jersey, you pay per zone you go into. C3: NY has one of the top tourist attractions of the world, New York City. From NYC, we get the origin of Broadway plays that you will not experience anywhere else. Most major television studios or broadcasting companies for news stations are in NYC. Also, there's a list of major attractions like Times Square, the World Trade Center, The United Nations, Museum of Modern Art, Central Park, 42nd Street, South St. Seaport, New York Stock Exchange, Wall Street, Chinatown, etc. The list honestly goes on and on. C4: Professionals who work in NYC generally make a higher salary then those from New Jersey. Due to the number of fortune 500 companies in NYC, professionals make much higher salaries if they work in the city for these companies. An average lawyer in NYC makes $102,000 a year. In New Jersey, the average lawyer makes only $86,000 in comparison. http://www.indeed.com...... http://www.indeed.com...... C5: NY is one of the most culturally diverse places in the world. In NYC, you will find Asians, Whites, Blacks, gays, straight people, lesbians, trans-genders, big people, and little people, of all shapes, sizes and colors. NYC does not discriminate at all and no population is underrepresented there at all.