BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults

I read and reread what my opponent wrote many times but there's a good chance that I will make at least on trivial mistake ; I hope my opponent and readers can forgive me, see the accidental nature of it and above all focus on the arguments themselves. Nevertheless, I hope to make no mistakes and enjoy this debate. ::Definitions:: Juvenile: 1.1."Not fully grown or developed; young." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1.2."Generally this refers to people between the ages of 14 and 17. They lose their juvenile status on their 18th birthday." http://www.fair-debt-collection.com... Felony: "an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, esp. those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year." http://dictionary.reference.com... ::Observation:: We are talking about USA and not Europe or Asia or the world. Now the USA has very violent juveniles: "There are currently about seventy million Americans under the age of 18, or a quarter of the total US population. Juvenile crime statistics report that 2.3 million juveniles were arrested in 2002. This accounts for 17 percent of all arrests and 15 to 25 percent of all violent crimes. According to juvenile crime statistics, murder accounted for five percent of violent crimes committed by juveniles, 12 percent for rape, 14 percent for robbery, and 12 percent for aggravated assault." http://www.onlinelawyersource.com... This may come in handy but at the moment I won't elaborate. ::Argument 1 :: Cause and effect. Every action has a consequence and while a 5 year old may not know that, a 14 year old will. Yes, I am aware that a 14 year old isn't as mature as an adult but we're talking about a very serious violent crime ! Surely, you can't say that a 14 year old wouldn't know that its wrong or that he thought it was no different from stealing a candy from the local shop. ::Argument 2:: Is a violent attack especially a felonious violent act the doing of a juvenile ? No. Obviously the child isn't pretending to be under 18, however, he is acting like an adult. To steal candy, to insult someone, even to bully someone is encompassed by the mind of a child but to commit such crime one must start to think like an adult. That is to say ones innocence disappears with the act. That would be all
In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults

The full resolution is: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. Following LD debate standards, the pro must first deliver his own speech and the round will be 3 rounds long with two Neg speeches and 3 Aff speeches with the Aff being first and last, assuming the aff is willing. I'd greatly appreciate for this debate to be conducted as fully as possible under LD debate standards. I thank my opponent in advance. -TheBear
Abortion is wrong and bad

I will present a little part to add on to my arguments of Round 2 even though Con has forfeited a round. I hope this debate will continue nonetheless. Abortion is a procedure in which woman terminates the individual life inside her (see R2). Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral, and just because something is accepted by society doesn't mean it's right. From my stance, it's like this: if a crowd of people walk one way I'm not just going to follow them as if I'm blind. So I dig deeper into ethics and the meaning of a human being. Is a baby being born still human? Yes. Should a human being have the right to live? Yes. Is the baby made of our own DNA and flesh and blood? Yes. Should we be killing off our own flesh and blood? Of course not. But the logic in the argument for abortion is that "some already-alive humans don't have time and/or resources for the not-yet-born humans." This breaks my heart and I think it is insensitive for it not to.
Abortion is wrong and bad

I could not post a response for this round. I already had my response half done on my computer when our water heater started leaking and flooded the room where my computer is. We had to remove everything from the room and bring in fans to clean it up. I am now on my parents computer and I didn't have time to post my response. I'm sorry about the entire ordeal, it really sucks when personal issues get in the way of debating. Anyways, I couldn't post a response, I wish to continue this debate, but I totally understand if my opponent doesn't want to.
Abortion is wrong and bad

Throughout the debate, I intend to refer to my opponent as Lydia. If Lydia has any concerns about my reference please let me know in the comments. I will not be presenting any rebuttals in the first round, for that would be unfair to Lydia and would give me an unfair advantage throughout the entire debate. I will be presenting my rebuttals in round two of Lydia’s round 1 response. I know this will be a formal, intelligent, and mature debate between Lydia and me on the controversial concept of abortion. I look forward to which view-point on this concept will win out in the end, and I sincerely hope that it will not end in the meaningless, vote less tie, which tragically happens to some unlucky few debates. Abortion is a procedure in which a pregnant woman terminates her pregnancy. There are two different ways to perform an abortion; medical abortion, or surgical abortion. A medical abortion usually uses two different drugs, methotrexate or mifepristone, which will sometimes be followed with misoprostol. Medical abortions are usually done in the beginning of a pregnancy. The other type of abortion surgical abortion, the most common technique is vacuum aspiration. In this procedure, a tube is inserted into the mother and the contents of the pregnancy are vacuumed out. Now the question is if abortion is morally acceptable. Now my role in this debate is to convince the voters to the best of my ability that it is. Lydia will try to convince the voters to the best of her ability that it is not. Argument 1: Woman should have the right to have full control of their bodies. In the first trimester of pregnancy, the fetus cannot survive without the mother. The fetus is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on the mother’s health, and cannot be regarded as a separate person. It is the mother’s constitutional right, and moral right, to have control of her own body. Taking away a mother’s right to her body, is never morally justified. Argument 2: According US Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, there is an average of 293,066 rape victims, age 12 or older every year. Assuming that the vast majority of these innocent women were impregnated, denying these women the right to not want a baby is immoral. These innocent women did nothing wrong to be forced with the responsibility of caring for a child. Denying women abortion is not morally justified. Argument 3: Teenagers who become pregnant will be forced to have a grim life without abortion. They are much more likely to drop out of school, receive inadequate care, rely on welfare taking up taxpayer dollars develop health problems, end up getting divorced, or poverty. The child of the mother is likely to face a similar life. Not having abortion will ruin the lives of mothers and children; this is not a morally justified course of action. Conclusion: I have stated my three arguments on how abortion is morally justifiable. I look forward to the rest of the debate, I would like to wish Lydia the best of luck. Thank you! Your friend, Atheism_Debater
Abortion is wrong and bad

Abortion is taking the right of life away from a human being who has no say in his/her situation. When you take the life away from someone, it is murder, therefore abortion is murder although there is much controversy. This controversy is what we will be debating about here. This debate will simply be about the morality and mortality of the subject of abortion. Pro = arguing that abortion is immoral and a form of murder against those who can't speak for themselves. Con = arguing that abortion is moral, perfectly fine for a mother to do, and that it is not murder (the fetus is not human enough to be considered murdered) Saying that the Burden of Proof is on me (Pro) would be correct but it won't do much good including that in my introduction, unless my opponent expects to just do rebuttals and not present his own arguments. Wrong: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Bad: http://www.merriam-webster.com... Aborting: http://www.merriam-webster.com... LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
We are thee most sinful generation since the great flood.

Okay and thanks for apologizing. To my own accord I took the number of years X and the age when given birth to each 1st child Y, I subtracted the respective and then took the age of that 1st child Z to then minus from the age of Father Q. X - Y = A Z - A = B Q - B = # of years past since father was born to first sons death I simply did calculator math and logic with the whole Enoch departure and the flood at the end. I strongly have moral belief in my math because it seems like it would take about 6,000 years to blow up. The people were not God fearing and probably molested with poverty, cannibalism and wars, let alone murder and rape. You give the chart about the murder rate depleting but you are an agnostic sir, murder is not even that bad of a sin in Gods eyes he supported war and destruction of hundred of thousands of men. Here is why we are thee most sinful generation: The amount of people praying per day has gone down. We have the access to porn. The amount of non-believers have increased. Most of Chinese population is atheist or agnostic. The use of lust has risen. The music and television have gone towards a more sexual context. The use of swearing has risen. The use of power and greed has risen. Suicide rates at also very high. *all these answers are one google search away and yeah they're worth a google. Remember mid-evil Europe? They had executions, genocides, and wars wage on with Christianity. But they were also very religious because they risked the lives fighting for it, they openly let the church run things because they knew their rewards are in the afterlife. Nobles would have mini confession areas next to their bed so very fist thing you wake up and pray. We have become very non-religious in the West. Middle East has always been religious and still clearly is cough cough ISIS. The west has become scientific and get an Agnostic feel to the masses. Not all Christians are truly followers of Christ. We have possibly a huge war about to rage upon the Earth and the hottest trend in high school is Spandex and blow jobs for cheeseburgers. We have removed God out of society and you guys would say "oh yeah they are finally waking up!" But I say "No, you have fallen asleep."
We are thee most sinful generation since the great flood.

Okay, first since you ARE playings devil's advocate, you must agree to the attire: There was a great flood about 6000-6200, my calculations are 6,124 years after Adam descended from the garden. My calculations are scoffed at by some Christians only believing the earth is 6000 years old, those are the silly ones you laugh at all the time. My former calculations have the Earth at 12,250-12,500 years old. But this is starting after Adam and Eve sinned, how long could they have lived in the garden? 10,000,000, 10,000,000,000 years? Nobody knows not me the christian nor you the atheist. I am a personal believer of evolution and and support science all most all the time. God first did make light, then water, and vegetation, then sea life and air life, then beast and man. Seems like science doesn't it? Light from the older stars, water first to support life, vegetation and non animalea species. Then made sea life, fish were first if you know anything about Darwinism. Air life was around in the time of the dinosaurs. Then beast of the earth you mammals and stuff and of course us last and according to science we were basically the last species to be born (Homo-sapiens) Well now let me start. God flooded us because we behaved in such a sinful way that the only thing a loving God can do is kill us all by drowning. God acted out of anger and regretted after words making the rainbow covenant with Noah. Now the time before Adam and Noah are 6124 years, it took God 6124 years to burst when only family on earth was religious God-fearing people. Now he promised never to flood it again and we have been past the flood for about 6,000 yrs. Our generation our current earths population must be worst than ever because you must assume that each generation has gotten more sinful. I'll leave my 2nd round at that I want to know what you want to say, again thanks for accepting.
Should Students Have To Wear Uniforms

School uniforms CAN, in a way, stop bullying. For example, kid goes to school (he comes from the average middle class family) wearing his favorite mickey mouse T-shirt and red sweatpants. A bully walks by wearing HIS favorite Microsoft sweater and blue shorts. The bully looks at the kid, and starts making fun at him for his sense of fashion and what he wears. If the two kids were wearing the same thing, though, the bully would be unable to make fun of the kid without making fun of himself.Thanks for the debate.
Should Students Have To Wear Uniforms

Schools uniforms don't allow students to express themselves in a way they are comfortable with. They don't stop bullying. Bully's will have the advantage to talk about the name brand uniforms and the non name brand uniforms. Uniforms can cause families to not have that much money because they are high. They are considered the most expensive pieces of clothing because most are name brand. At the time when Ed White had to wear uniforms many people didn't have money, the uniforms didn't have the right school colors, they didn't come in the right sizes and etc... The Khakis pants are high then Jupiter's moon.
Titanfall is best shooter of all time.

I did not state that it was your fault that I misunderstood what I read. You sir need to : 1. take a chill pill 2. acknowledge that I acknowledge that I lost the debate. I was trigger happy and pressed the "accept debate" button before realizing you were contradictory to that of the title. 3. stop debating, I am not defending myself or the game, you have this motive instilled into you to prove that Titanfall is unsatisfactory, well congratulations, you continued to irrelevantly argue in spite of my apologies. Good day.
Titanfall is best shooter of all time.

"Stop talking like some damn newscaster during prime time. And I am not acknowledging defeat, I openly admitted to misunderstanding your platform. You must really hate Titanfall." First of all, it was clearly established that I stated that Titanfall is a good game in general back at Round 2. ("Thesis: Titanfall is a good online shooter and it's fun, but it just didn't bring enough for it to renown itself as the greatest shooter.") Second of all, you have acknowledged your defeat because you've agreed to my arguments being true. Therefore, you've failed to defend your place as "Pro." Pro, as I've heard billions of times is the participant in a debate that is for a debate topic. So, that means, you're supposed to defend Titanfall as the best shooter of all time like the topic states. But, however; you failed to do so. Therefore, you have lost the entire debate ever since Round 1. So, it wasn't my fault that you misunderstood the content of the first round. Your misunderstanding of the content was YOUR downfall. You shouldn't have "thought" anything. You were supposed to know what you're going into before you signed up. READ THE FINE PRINT!
Titanfall is best shooter of all time.

Pro has openly admitted to my arguments. Therefore, it is apparent that I am the clear victor of this debate. But, however; I will continue to address my arguments supporting my thesis and I will start my rebuttals. Arguments 4-5 4. Titanfall didn't get as much praise as the best current shooters out there. The average review score for Titanfall on the Xbox One is 86. Whereas, Grand Theft Auto is a 97. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's average score is 92. That's the PC version. MW3's average score is 88, just slightly above Titanfall's 86. As far as I've seen, the total amount of sales are 650,000 copies. I know these aren't true, but I haven't seen any sale numbers of Titanfall that's relatively current. I do know that the sale numbers are probably not even near Black Ops 2 sale numbers which is more than 21 million copies. 5. Simply put, it's just another shooter. Think about it, what else does Titanfall have besides Titans, guns, and parkour? *Cricket noise*....NOTHING!!! Titanfall fails to bring anything else other than its parkour and mech gameplay. After a while, that stuff gets boring and it's already boring. Now, I shall start my rebuttals REBUTTALS: In the beginning, pro was acting as if he were against the topic instead of for. Probably, pro thought he was against the topic. But, still, he still failed to pay attention of his actions, broke some rules, and didn't even formulate a thesis. Therefore, pro has lost the debate, but that doesn't mean we will stop here at mid-debate. We will continue our rebuttals even though pro has acknowledged his defeat. Rules Update: All rules will be discarded for further rounds.
Titanfall is best shooter of all time.

I was about to rebut against Pro's argument, but regulations say that we aren't allowed to rebut until round 3. Plus, Pro has broken the rule in the first round. Pro was not supposed to state his arguments in the first round. Therefore, it results him into a 7-point deduction. Now, I shall begin. Thesis: Titanfall is a good online shooter and it's fun, but it just didn't bring enough for it to renown itself as the greatest shooter. I will show my reasons on why Titanfall is not the best shooter of all time. Reason #1: Titanfall is already boring People are already getting bored of Titanfall. You see, this happens with almost every shooter. It comes out, everybody gets hyped until their brains explode, they play for a couple of weeks, and they get bored. What's even sad is, usually, Call of Duty gets boring after a couple of months in it's life cycle. Titanfall barely made it through a month. When this game first came out, everybody was excited. Here we are, April 16, 2014, and we're already bored of it. Some people are still in that "honeymoon" phase because they really love the game or they don't play it as much, or they just got the game. IT'S JUST BORING! That's it. Every match doesn't have any variety to them other than some small differences. You go into the map from a dropship, kill a couple of people, you lose, go back to the dropship. There's no variety. Yeah, there's DLC coming out which will hype up some people again, but that "honeymoon" phase will slip through quickly. http://www.gamefaqs.com... 2. The story is bland and underdeveloped. You will not care for the characters or what's going on in the game other than people shooting at you. Characters will die and you will just ask "Who are you?" Now, I see the potential in the story. Titans and a militia group fighting for their territory. That sounds AWESOME! I saw the potential there, but the execution was done poorly. Every mission is the same. Go in the map and kill some people. It would be cool to have some variety in the mission like A STEALTH MISSION IN MULTIPLAYER! That right there would be revolutionary. 3. People are pissed off at this game. You know who they are. It's those PlayStation fanboys that cripple this game. Plus, there is a bunch of them. They are against the fact that Titanfall is just a good game. There are other people that pissed off at this game other than PS fanboys. It's those people who had overly high expectations for this game. It's those same people who intentionally search for flaws and they complain about it when they find that one flaw. Don't get me wrong, I was kind of disappointed myself. But, it didn't disappoint me that much and my disappointment wasn't extreme. http://www.gamefaqs.com...
Titanfall is best shooter of all time.

I accept the challenge, but I am an impatient fellow with a lot of time on my hands so I will begin. First of all, it would have been nice for you to provide some insight into your statement, it would give me a platform to debate on, In spite of this, I shall down the cold facts. Shooter is a very broad category, which case games are designed to test speed and reaction time of a participant. It would have been less narrow minded had you said "first person shooter". Anyway, Titanfall in my opinion is an unoriginal piece of sci-fi garbage that contains the same principle of basically every other first person shooter, only things separating it from anything other first person shooter is the parkour and the robot suits. I believe call of duty world at war was the best first person shooter, the real life events combined with overly-dramatic campaigns and missions resulted in one hell of play. Explain to me what makes Titanfall better then its predecessors.
Titanfall is best shooter of all time.

Hello, I will be acting against this debate topic. In this round, I will set up rules and regulations for this debate that you must follow to the letter: First Round: Acceptance and Greetings - Just simply say "I accept the challenge." Second Round: Thesis + Introductive Arguments Supporting Thesis - You are required to formulate a thesis statement and conduct arguments supporting your thesis statement. Separate your thesis and your arguments. Third Round: Arguments and/or Rebuttals - Rebuttals are required. If you have more arguments to state, you are free to do so, but separate your arguments from your rebuttals. Fourth Round: Rebutting the Rebuttals - You will no longer post additional arguments supporting your thesis. In this round, you are required to post rebuttals. It's just more rebuttals simply put. Fifth Round: Conclusions and Salutations - This round will require you to type ONE PARAGRAPH ONLY (3-5 sentences). You will no longer state any more arguments or rebuttals. In this round, you will restate your overall opinion of the debate into 3-4 sentences. Plus, you will be required to type a 1-2 sentence closing of your participation of the debate. Other Rules: 1. No insulting, trolling, or anything that will offend a participant of the debate like calling him "stupid" or a "dumb***" or something like that. 2. No Rich Text. Use normal text only. 3. For you arguments, you must give at least 2 sources. 4. For your arguments, provide at least 3 reasons. 5. Of course, I didn't cover everything in regards to rules. So, me, as the instigator, I have the ability to add and change the rules at any time of the debate just in case if I forget to put some in because I'm tired. It's 11:32 P.M and I'm bored. So, that's all the rules I think. WARNING: When the contestant of the debate fails to follow ANY of the regulations of the debate shown above, it will result in an automatic 7-point deduction. Of course, these rules also apply to me as well. Will Pro accept the challenge?