BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Raising the driving age from 16 to 18

To refute my opponent's points: ============================Refutes========================================== 1) "new drivers (as in inexperienced) are logically more likely to cause accidents on the road." There have been many scientific studies that prove that 18 year olds are more mature and more likely to make the right decision while on the road. It is also proven that 16 year olds are more likely to drink and drive, so obviously an 18 year old would do a better job. Experience doesn't matter when when you're drunk. 2) "A reduction by two years in driving will NOT decrease the amount of obesity," "You won't get a job if it's not local" It WILL decrease obesity because people [for two years] will be forced to walk, bike, or scooter. IF you're job's not local, you can take public transit, and at least be forced to WALK to a bus or train. ===============================Points=========================================== (Found in round 2) =VOTE PRO=
Raising the driving age from 16 to 18

Rocky, I have more than 3 good reasons why your contentions are completely pointless. To refute your first point, new drivers (as in inexperienced) are logically more likely to cause accidents on the road. If we raise the age to 18, then as 18 year olds, they will get into accidents as new drivers just as much as 16 year old teens. Raising the driving age to 18 does NOT cause the roads to be any safer than they already are. Wouldn't such things as college and possible careers pressure a teen more when they're 18 rather than when they are 16? To tackle your second point, laws are broken in every country. People still smoke underage. People still drink underage. Getting behind the wheel of a car is one of the first steps of independency. A reduction by two years in driving will NOT decrease the amount of obesity, rather increase it; it's all reason and logic. If you can't drive 6 miles to work, and you don't have a bike, then you won't get a job unless it is local. And if you can't find a local job, then pretty much you're sitting around the house. If you decide to take public transit, you're just wasting your money every day commuting. Public transit doesn't provide exercise. .. My Opponent has stated three unvalid reasons why we should take away independency and conveniency from our youth, and has failed to state any evidence for his side.
Raising the driving age from 16 to 18

Students are excited to head off to college and need a way of transportation. They will be independent and learn what it is like to become an adult. Raising the driving age from 16 to 18 delays a teenager's sense of independency and is inconvenient to the parents of the teen and the student. I ask the Pro side this: give me one good reason why we should be taking this away from our youth. Without the teen knowing how to drive until college, they will not be able to get around to jobs, groceries, or be independent. Instead, they will have to pay for public transit every time they need to go anywhere. Raising the driving age will NOT lower the amount of driving accidents in teens because being two years older does not give them an extra two years of experience in driving if they are just sitting and waiting around. A 16 year old would be more likely caught drinking underage then am 18 year old, completely making the alcohol factor irrelavent. This debate is mostly based on reason. Is there any reason why we should not let a 16 year old drive? Thank you; I will expand later on in my next speech.
Raising the driving age from 16 to 18

http://www.edgarsnyder.com... does not seem to be a trusted or reliable source. Either way, 18 year olds are technically teens. if 71% of crashes are caused by drunk driving in teens in the US, that incluces ages 16-19. The Pro side has failed to explain why being older means you're less likely to drink. I have given the reasonable fact that an 18 year old's appearance is more developed toward the age of 21 than a 16 year old's physical appearance. The obesity point IS clearly ridiculous! Walking to a bus stop is better than walking to the garage? Does this make any difference? If you are reading this, do you see any connection of obesity to driving at a younger age by TWO YEARS? As a biker, you need to know when to turn, when to stop, and when to go on a street! You need to know the rules of the streets JUST LIKE DRIVERS! Therefore, the Con side has CLEARLY won this point beyond doubt. Nobody drives their car all day long! People have better things to do than waste gas money, like getting to a good school, getting to work, and maybe even GETTING TO THE GYM TO EXERCISE! My opponent has stated no evidence except for an unreliable website that has facts irrelavent to this debate, Stated one unreliable source Stated no reasoning. Therefore, it is justified that I can state that there is no reason to change the driving age to 18. And has weakly refuted my points with excuses of absolutely no thought and 100% defensive rubbish. For these reasons, the Con side CLEARLY wins this debate. Thank you again for the challenge; it has been interesting debating you.
Raising the driving age from 16 to 18

==============================Refutations======================================= 1) To refute that point: 71% of crashes in the US are caused by drunk driving (in teens) http://www.edgarsnyder.com... 1b) Being older DOES mean you're less likely to drink, if we raise it to 18, then we wouldn't have drunk teens in a car, we would have drunk teens on a bus, which is better? 2) "This obesity point is completely ridiculous", no it's not, it makes complete sense that if kids aren't' allowed to drive, they will be forced to use bikes, public transit, etc. At least they will have to WALK to a bus stop, rather than to their garage. 3) "There are some places such as the countryside or Central Valley in California where there is poor public transit" as I have said before, if you can afford to buy a car, you can afford to buy a bike, and you can travel anywhere on a bike that you could on a car locally. That point is down. 4) "Encourage you NOT to go outside and rather sit around all day doing nothing", if you have a car, you will be sitting around all day driving your car. ==================================Conclusion=================================== My opponent has: Stated NO evidence Stated few sources not clearly refuted my refutations not clearly refuted some of my points ================================================================== ==============================VOTE-PRO============================== ==================================================================
Weapon laws should be more flexible in Europe

Europe has faced one of the toughest immigrant waves in the last 80 years, not only have we taken in too many immigrants for our governments to handle, these immigrants have in fact been in many cases terrorists that have struck our European union hard. My opinion is not trying to hate on these immigrants, I am fully aware that these people come from nothing but war and oppression. My thought process is simple, make it easier for legitimated European citizens with clean background checks to acquire guns within the EU in order to somewhat prevent a chaotic scene that were all familiar with at the moment in within the Europeans borders.
Beaminster is the capital of Europe

Crewkerne is best to be the capital of Europe as lots of Europe is foreign to us, just like crewkerne is:1. It's in Somerset, so there is a weird accent.2. There are weird shops where there's nothing good in them.3. We may as well concrete over crewkerne.4. Weird food in crewkerne.Prime minister? He lives in London, which isn't crewkerne so it's not the capital of Europe. Your argument is wrong.Thank you.
Beaminster is the capital of Europe

NO Crewkerne is way to big Beaminster sounds like minster and the priminister lives in places like Beaminster Crewkerne is mostley inhabited by old people ........ not goodBeaminster is better because it has a um... um....um... um... um a ..no...maybe... no ah..noOh yeh it has a garden centre Thats whyThankyou
Legalize Marijuana

Legalizing Marijuana does not condone the use of Marijuana but it is the best way in handling the substance. Criminalization of Marijuana is a faulty approach and is harming our citizens. Legalizing Marijuana is a benefit for all the United States. I support the Legalization on the federal level and as a states rights advocate, I believe that states can vote separately to legalize Marijuana or not. I challenge you sir to this debate!
You're Not Supposed to Play with Poop

Resolution - You're not suppose to play with poopMeaning I am pro, stating this is correct. That you are in fact not suppose to play with poop. My adversary is con, meaning he is saying you are suppose to play with pop. So let's beginThe first thing we must find out, is what "play" means. play - engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose.[1]C1) Poop can cause diseasesBy play we can see that my adversary means that you are suppose to have some type of recreations use for poop. Such as the game of toss the poop This however is not healthy. Touching poop can cause diseases. Let's just take a look at a few. From playing with poop you can get quite a few diseases. Adenovirus, Campylobacter infection, Coxsackievirus (hand-foot-mouth disease), Enteroviruses,E. coli infection, Giardia infection, Rotavirus, Salmonella, Shigella, Tapeworms, Toxoplasmosis [2]We can easily see that playing with poop can get you sick, so you obviously should avoid playing with it to avoid death or illnessC2) It smellsPoop just smells, there is no reason to want to play with it. It can make you vomit, and even cause sickness. ConclusionTo avoid death and illness you should not play with poop[1]Dictonary.com[2] http://www.cdc.gov...
Helping People

In regards to petty things like cutting their hair: I understand how tedious it could be to assist someone in something as minute as that, and from what I've read of you, it does seem like you could allocate your time in a much more productive fashion, if strictly from an ambitious, cynical view point. But one must realize that if we compare the difference, on a grander scale, of helping them with spiritual beliefs and cutting their hair, it is indistinguishably the same. It is only noticeable for the two parties involved--you and them. So essentially the question arises: Do you care about your happiness more than theirs? On arguing: I realize how monumentally frustrating it can to argue with a bigot. I myself have done it, and it takes every essence of your fiber not to break down and rip your hair out at their (frankly) stupidity. But it is imperative you remain patient. Two people screaming creates only two people screaming; one person screaming and one person reasoning creates two people reasoning. Let them yell, and wait until they're done, and then make a few quick, cutting statements and you'll find that even the surest of bigots is inclined to at least walk away contemplating. On cherry picking: I agree as well, so this point seems to be conceded by the both of us. On a demanding family: As before, I recognize that it can be hard to cope with a family as demanding as yours sounds. But it is again crucial that you recognize that helping them in either petty or prodigious things is unimportant except to the only two being helped. If you really, truly don't have the time to help them, then tell them so and if they insult you . . . well, let not the foolish bring forth foolishness in the wise. Also, I don't think you're helping them be as they are; in fact, I think in denying them you're helping them be as they are. I implore you to consider this: You walk into a room cross and aggravated, and find the only person to help you is an elderly man, of perhaps seventy, whom you strongly disagree with. Yet you realize you will need his help, so you endure the damage to your pride and ask him for assistance. What do you think is more apt to change your views on his views--his assistance or his denial? -in truth, TryingAtLogic P.S. I don't mind extreme exaggerations, so long as the analogy is clear. Any logic should be applicable of the tense it was applied, and thus able to be successfully reapplied in another standard of that tense.
Helping People

Should I help people that don't respect me. Should I help people that don't respect me namely my brothers and parents. I don't feel that I should. If they ask me politely to do something for them like cutting there hair and if I am busy and if I say I cant I am doing something else, they would get angry and say why not, what are you doing. Once they here what I am doing they judge it and if it doesn't coincide with something they would do like mediating they would start arguing with me. If I don't do something for them they would say, I thought your supposed to be spiritual and help people or they would say, it says in the bible that you are supposed to help people, even thou they are Christian and they never even read the bible. They try to pick on the things I am trying to learn and use it to their advantage. I love helping people I don't know. My family think I should help my own brothers and sisters first and then help others. I love helping people I don't know because they don't hate me and I don't know what they have been through in there lives and how good of a person they are. I just don't like helping people who hate me, don't respect me or my belief's and that are only asking my help just so they don't have to do things that they don't want to do. I would rather HELP them if it had something to do with their health, psychology or relationships than just cutting their hair so they think that they look cool or good looking. I am against helping people that don't like to listen to me and that see me as their servant. I hope someone enlightens me. Thank You!
Helping People

And thank you too for debating with me. In regards to petty things: If some people don't appear to be interested in the help you have offered, then you have (generally) two options. One: persist in helping them, and hope it becomes more interesting. Two: give up. It's generally based on a choice of principal. On arguing: You could always just establish a me-time/you-time schedule, based around the periods of the day you are busy and the periods of the day you aren't. On a demanding family: I find that I'm a very unorganized person, at least in regards to time. But I find that if I set out a clear guideline for the day, I'll go through it much quicker. This may be the best choice for you. I think the best way to stop them from becoming aggravated is to help them, because in helping them, they're compelled to believe that your lifestyle choice is the right one because you become a role model. You must ensure, however, that they recognize that this is not directly charity; while you are ascertaining no monetary reward, they should show recognition to the fact that you are helping them, and in this, try to be more productive. If you really, truly can't help them, my best advice would be to direct them to someone who can. It's been a pleasure debating you, and it's always fun to see life through the eyes of another. -thank you, gracias, merci, gratias, Austin "TryingAtLogic" G.
Helping People

Just want to say upfront, thank you to the person who is in this debate with me and to all the people who have commented. I would love to hear more comments. In regards to petty things I care about there happiness as well as mine, however when I help them and see what they do everyday, I see that they are sill not happy. I am mostly happy as long as no one try's to control what makes me happy. I cant help but think that if they would at least listen to what I have to say about how I have helped myself then they could be one more step closer to non-suffering. It upset's me when they scoff at whatever I say without them even looking into, I almost feel that if they are going to ask me for help then they should at least listen to the person that is helping them and try to understand what they are saying. I never ask for help without giving something in return. I help myself out, there are times that I could have used help but I don't like to disturb anyone and I sill get the job done I would not mind living of the land and finding my own food and making my own shelter. Going off the grid and living own my own. I find peace going into my forest in our land and practising my bush craft skills by myself. I think I am happy as long as no one is with me. On arguing: I completely understand what you are saying and what you are saying is something that I will have to work on. Is there a way of making them understand that I have a life outside of what they see and that others can help or help them understand that there are some things one has to do one his/her own? Is there a way of making them know what I am saying? On a demanding family: When there is times I cant help them they act like I have done something to them and then they store up a small bit of hate each time. I understand that I have to change but is doing one thing better than the other, should I help paint an old mans fence or cut my dads lawn? Or is it about doing both and planning and organizing time? I understand what you said "I don't think you're helping them be as they are; in fact, I think in denying them you're helping them be as they are". I think you are talking about when I don't help them and they get aggravated so its best to help them so they wont get so upset, but should I do this forever? Is there a way for me to stop them from getting so aggravated and upset when they ask me for my help but I cant help them? Our debate as been very interesting and informative. Its been great to talk to someone as wise as you. There Is a lot I still need to learn and practise, but I will think about all you have said and try to learn from it. yours sincerely, Paul Young
The Sabbath

No, the vote was not won, you have a belief, I have a belief. But one has to be right, why would God change his law. It even say's in the Bible that God will NEVER change his law, and He will NEVER change, and God doesn't lie, because if He did, we wouldn't trust Him, everyone would turn against Him. And at this time, alot of us are turned against Him, and alot of us our turning against Him. And the end times are coming soon, alot of us will not be there. Sadly :( God is crying for us to be saved, and alot of us are turning against Him for the things of this world. This world offers nothing but hate. And he's getting ripped apart by our sins, and alot us are not obeying His word, by not keeping His Sabbath, which many think they are, but yet that road which many follow just ends up to destruction. Please don't be offended by that, but it's true.
The Sabbath

Extend arguments R1: catholic belief I agree this is why I wanna convert, but according to our belief the pope is the magistrate and his word is law, this is a valid belief. (1) I have now won this debate as I have proven one religeon differs from the Saturday idea, also you have the BOP. R2; calandar and genisis The current calandar is the gregorian calandar introduced in 1582 (2) notice this happened one thousand five hundred years after the birth of Christ and the other calandars. The calandar was different, so using a modern calandar will have different results then the genisis one. The roman lunar calandar only had 10 months (3) So this is one of the older calandars, logically the 10 month cycle would change results. A new calandar is a bad example. Conclusion: Sabbath = Sunday Vote con! Edge catholic Education class (1) http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (2) http://csep10.phys.utk.edu... (3)
The Sabbath

Okay first, I'm not against the Catholic Church, it's my belief. And when you said that scripture in acts, it doesn't mean Paul couldn't have left on Sunday, all he was saying is that he's leaving the next day. And in Genesis 22:2-3 it didn't say that the first day was the Sabbath, it said the seventh day, and if you look on a calendar, Saturday is the seventh day of the week.
The Sabbath

Nothing to refute, my case; C1: Christian belief About 150 years ago Christians adopted Sunday as the sabbath. Gen 2:2-3 god himself states Sunday is the sabbath, the day of rest. (1) Also in 1998 pope john paul the II asked Christians to worship Sunday as the sabbath.(1) Also the Lutheran church says Sunday is the sabbath. (1) 364 AD the sabbath day became the sabbath. (2) "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. " (3) acts 20:7 First day = Sunday Also my church has a bible programe. The leaders had a whole night proving Sunday was the sabbath. (4) further more my priest also had a reading on the subject (5) I assume this is a Christian mainly catholic debate. Conclusion: Sunday = the sabbath http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (1) http://www.letusreason.org... (2) Youth children's catholic bible (3) Edge catholic education class (4) Father mike (5)
4 year-old girls should be licked by adult men

If a 4 year-old girl wants to be licked by a grown up man, To deny her of that would be a crime. If she licks a grown up man, It is only polite for the man to lick her back. We must teach our children to be friendly with strangers and insist to be licked by them. Children who aren't licked are worth nothing. When I walk on the streets, If I see a child alone, I am going to lick it. Children should be kissed and tickled and licked by grown ups. Lick a 4 year-old girl's cheek as if she was a lollipop, As if she was a sweet candy. Seeking her as a precious jewel, For to give up I would be a fool. Even if she doesn't want to be licked, Give her politely the unwanted lick.
Christianity is Good For America

This debate is self explanatory. If you have any questions add in the comment section and ill answer. I WILL ARGUE CON.1st round: Accept and you give your initial arguments.2nd round: My rebuttal and my argument. Your rebuttal and your argument.3rd round: My rebuttal and my argument. Your rebuttal and your argument.4th round: Repeat.5th round: Repeat and Conclusion.