BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

You state that the UCCs doctrine of unconscionability suggests the doctrine is designed to prevent oppression and unfair surprise.. and not the disturbance of risks because of superior bargaining power. While this is part of the doctrine of unconscionability, it is not exclusive to these terms. Unconscionability can be found beyond these terms and is easily found in Williams vs. Walker-Thomas. The terms of the contracts between Williams and Walker-Thomas, wherein Walker-Thomas may repossess all items purchased if Williams defaulted on a single payment, are unreasonably favorable to Walker-Thomas. The contracts provide a safety net for Walker-Thomas in the event that a buyer defaults on payments. But no such consideration is made for Williams, even given her past reliability as a buyer. At the time of the lawsuit, she owed only $164 to Walker-Thomas. This means the bulk of the items purchased between 1957 and 1962 would have been almost entirely paid off. Instead of working with her to a mutually beneficial solution, like a reconsideration of her payment plans, Walker-Thomas chose to repossess those past items nearly paid off. You claim that the items repossessed would have depreciated over time and the high interest rate goes to cover Walker-Thomas's potential loss upon repossessing items in defaulted sales. If this is the case, would it not have been in their best interest to instead work with Williams to allow her to keep the items worth the amount already paid by her and repossess only what was owed? They would have already made a profit off of her interest payments and would have recouped additional losses by repossessing certain items for additional resale. You state that the interest rate appears to be high and is formulated that way because Walker-Thomas faces approximate equal risk and that repossession of the item would entail a loss. This does not appear to be an approximate equal risk if Williams is given the burden of making payments and has no product to show for it after five years. If her balance was left at $164 it is more than reasonable to expect a competitive business like Walker-Thomas to come to an agreement about the defaulted payments for the stereo and the outstanding $164. It is also reasonable then to expect that Walker-Thomas would allow her to keep items nearly paid off since 1957 since their value would have decreased for resale, she is a seemingly loyal repeat customer, and had no previous history of payment problems. Williams may have been familiar with the terms of the contract but if she kept doing business with them, she probably thought herself unlikely to fall victim to the unfavorable terms in the contract. Between 1957 and 1962, Williams kept up with her payments even given her low monthly income and the expenses associated with raising seven children. It is the courts responsibility to prevent business from preying on customers through unconscionable contracts and other unfair business practices. Therefore they must rule in Williams favor.
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

The contract between Williams and Walker-Thomas is not unconscionable. Williams voluntarily purchased a stereo from Walker-Thomas, a company in which she has rented items from before. Both parties were aware of Williams" financial situation, which remain mostly unchanged since 1957, or the period when she was making timely payments on the initial items rented from Walker-Thomas. The fact that Williams needed a stereo does not give Walker-Thomas special bargaining power over Williams, since there is a competitive market among the sellers of this good. In fact, the price presented to Williams was most likely the equilibrium price for this good. Williams was offered an agreement, and she voluntarily chose to enter into it. If she was unhappy with the terms, she had the freedom to walk away and find another company to rent a stereo from. Furthermore, Williams was not physically or psychologically forced in any way into signing the contract. She had the freedom of choice to not take the deal, and the price offered by Walker-Thomas was not a wrongful act to begin with. Lastly, both parties face an approximately equal amount of risk by entering into this agreement. The items in which Walker-Thomas could seek to repossess will have depreciated in price over time, especially items for which technological advances are made extremely often. Also, Walker-Thomas faces a substantial amount of legal fees each time they seek to repossess any item. Based on this evidence, the contract between Walker-Thomas and Williams is unconscionable. 1) The UCC"s doctrine of unconscionability suggests the doctrine is "designed to prevent oppression and unfair surprise.. and not the disturbance of risks because of superior bargaining power" (488.7.1). 2) The fact that Williams needed a stereo does not give Walker-Thomas any special bargaining power over Williams, since there is a competitive market among the sellers of this good (those of which include rental plans) (493.6.2). 3) Williams was equally aware of her financial situation, and gave no reason for Walker-Thomas to believe that she would unable to make timely payments based on her previous agreements with the company. 4) Walker-Thomas did not use coercion or duress to force Williams into signing the contract. 5) Although the interest rate appears to be high, Walker-Thomas faces approximate equal risk whereas the item(s) sold will depreciate over time and repossession of the item would entail a loss (492.3.2) 6) Therefore, the contract between Williams and Walker-Thomas was not unconscionable.
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

Walker-Thomas was a furniture company based in District of Columbia. Sales were made on a rent-to-own basis. Over a period of four years, Williams entered knowingly into multiple contracts with Walker-Thomas. Walker-Thomas utilized a standard contract in all of its dealings, which were not open for negotiation. The standard contract stated that items were essentially rented until fully paid for, at which point the title would be transferred to the buyer"s name. It was also stated that if any payments were missed, any items not fully paid up were eligible to be immediately repossessed by Walker-Thomas. Williams"s monthly payments, including interest, were calculated based on her monthly income of $218 from the government and the fact that she had to provide for her seven children. At the time of her purchase of a stereo set in 1962, Williams owed only $164 to Walker-Thomas for prior purchases. It is not clear if any titles for those previously bought items had been transferred to her name. She defaulted on her payments shortly after buying the stereo set and Walker-Thomas sought to repossess all items in contract going back to 1957. It is noted in the courts decision that while her purchases totaled $1,800.00, she made payments totaling $14,000.00. This means she was given a highly unfavorable interest rate due to her unstable financial situation. The non-negotiable terms of the contract and the elevated interest rate show that Walker-Thomas took advantage of Williams for significant financial gain. The business practice of repossessing items long since paid for from a customer who has already been taken advantage of in contract is unconscionable. The Court should have ruled in favor of Williams and allowed the titles to be transferred to her name for all items purchased before the stereo. Walker-Thomas should have been ordered to repossess the stereo and collect the outstanding $164 from Williams, thus concluding all business dealings between the parties. 1)Given her low monthly income, Williams would not have been able to afford to buy any of these household items at another store that would have required that she pay in full at the time of purchase. (492.3.3) 2)In her contracts with Walker-Thomas, Williams did not have any bargaining potential and had, presumably, little bargaining ability. (493.7.2-3) 3)Walker-Thomas offered Williams contracts with elevated interest rates due to the assumed risk of selling to someone with a low monthly income; thereby increasing the likelihood that Williams would default and Walker-Thomas would then be able to repossess the items. (492.3.3) 4)At the time of the sale of the stereo, Walker-Thomas again took advantage of Williams"s financial situation despite her history of timely payments on past purchases. (512.2.2) 5)The total of her payments from 1957-1962 was $14,000.00, which far surpassed the value of the goods purchased, during that time. (513.9.1-3) THEREFORE: 6)The terms of the contract regarding repossession of items long since paid for was unconscionable and the court should have ruled in favor of Williams.
Non-GMO Food is more Beneficial to Society than GMO Food

**Note** This is the same debate that Subutai and I had before, except with some minor modifications. The reason why we're having a new debate is because Subutai inadvertently plagiarized most of his arguments in the orginal debate.Debate Procedure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Introduction and Refutations Round 3: Refutations Round 4: Conclusion (no new arguments) Definitions GMO:An organism whose genetic characteristics have been altered by the insertion of a modified gene or a gene from another organism using the techniques of genetic engineering. Beneficial:Favorable or advantageous; resulting in good. Society: The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. Burden of Proof On me, Pro. I will use evidence and logic to support the claim. First round is acceptance. As Pro, I will provide evidence on how GMOs are unhealthy and that Non-GMO food is healthier.
My opponent can't answer this question before the next round

And now to all of the people who have scorned me and called me stupid and every other name you can think off that attcks ones intelligence for saying that our govt is trying to socialize our health care system, I fricken told you so!!! And I have been saying it sence I joined this website. All you people who put trust in govt are complete fools and you all deserve to lose your freedom. Unfortunately you will take me down with you. Govt is the problem, get it through your thick skulls. I was right on this, I was right about the auto industry, and I was right about the banking industry. This country will be full blown socialist before Obama leaves office and capitalism will cease to exsist. Now go get in the bread line comrades. How anyone can not see that Obama is a communist is just sticking their head in the sand. Vote con. He answered the question spot on. If you wont listen to me listen to him. Health care is going to be taken over by our govt, and if you think it is expensive now just wait till govt gets its hands on it. There wont be enough taxes in the world to pay for it.
My opponent can't answer this question before the next round

Here is Congress's health care bill in it's entirety: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov... My challenge is that my opponent will not be able to answer a simple question I have about this bill before the 72 hour time limit expires. I will allow my opponent to look else where if they so desire. The Question: If a "Public Option" is made available, can I continue to keep private health insurance if I am laid off, quit or get fired. In other words, If I lose my private health insurance that I am supposedly going to be able to keep, will I be able to buy private health insurance again or will I be forced into the Public Option permanently.
Luffy could beat Kaede (Elfen Lied) in a fight

I highly doubt luffy's humor would keep Kaede at calm, probably piss her off more, thats just my thought.Also luffy before even discovering his haki had always had an ability to sense incoming danger, so the chances of an instant decapitation is very low. Anyways, nice debate, this was a topic ive had stuck in thought for a while that was had to find anyone willing to discuss it.
Luffy could beat Kaede (Elfen Lied) in a fight

Wow, that was a lot more than I expected to be dealing with. You bring up many good points that are undeniable. Odds are, Luffy would win. He is not a very serious person, and probably wouldn't use any of his Haki until he became fully aware of how dangerous things are, but even then, things would still be difficult for Kaede. His good humor would keep Kaede calm, so rage could not overtake her, even if she seemed pissed. Kaede's only chance would be to distract him, which normally isn't her style of fighting. If she was angry, she could possibly let her vectors act separately of her own mind, which could hinder his Kenbunshoku to some extent, but not greatly. If she attacked right from the beginning, before Luffy get's serious, she might be able to decapitate him. Since I've never seen that happen to Luffy, I'd have to assume that is a way to kill him. But again, Kaede has a very small chance of beating him. Regardless though, she would still look good fighting :D
Luffy could beat Kaede (Elfen Lied) in a fight

While it's true Monkey D. Luffy is made of rubber, and rubber is very hard to destroy, plus his abilities to propel his limbs rapidly to deliver a much stronger hit, he still cannot compare to Kaede's Vectors. They can stop the majority of projectiles unless they are of high density or velocity, just like Luffy. However, coupled with the fact that they are invisible and can cut through material or otherwise interact with the physical world. It would be as simple as throwing Luffy in the water and cutting his head off, and he would never know it happened.
God exists

Eh, You're going to be disappointed, I've tried to read through this all a few times to put together a concise summery, But can't seem to do it, Ah well. Could address some of the points you gave in round 5, But nah, 'real base summery time. Basically though, Pros argument depends on too many highly contended assumptions (Both by me and the rest of society) While I do not think I made a case on why a deity would not exist, I 'do think I made a convincing case on why many of Pros reasons given in this debate for believing in the existence were not adequate or proven true to me. And if reasons given for a deities existence were thought incorrect or opposite, Couldn't they be logic against a deity? Eh, Not sure I had fun, Though it was interesting. I haven't actually tried debating with people other than myself on the existence of God yet. Mostly because I find it uncomfortable, And don't feel a need to question that belief negatively in other people. But, I did want to know my own reasons for not believing in such, Helped a bit.
God exists

Barbossa : It's not possible! Jack Sparrow : Not *probable*. -Pirates of the Caribbean That pretty much sums up my thoughts on that. Though, I'll reiterate them in round 5 for the summation. My subjective view of morality certainly exists in DNA and culture. Though it might be better to call it Nature and Nurture. My objective view of morality isn't so much that there is one certain 'correct morality, But acknowledgement that certain patterns are more likely to emerge during certain times. Which isn't really what people tend to mean by objective morality. They mean, I take it, That one certain pattern is the one true pattern, Above all others. I don't. Sigh, Reference point, Reference point. We exist. Exist starting with our Nature/DNA. Come into a world Culture/Nurture. That is enough. If everyone possessed the exact same DNA and exact same life experiences, Then morality, Likely would appear objective to me. But it is clear, As we 'do 'not, That we 'have 'not objective morality. Should trees all grow objectively the same rate and shape by virtue of being trees? Should morality grow the same rate and shape by virtue of our humanity? No. Experiences vary. Environments vary. Cultures built for generations upon generations vary. What reference point? We have the ground beneath our feet and ourselves. A human doesn't need anything else for morality. Granted, When we first exist life and morality will be primitive, But what of it. We did not build skyscrapers from the start. Did not build iron from the start. Not bronze. We started, With 'Stone. Objective morality as it exists is useless in itself. Of course there are different colors that we can't see. Sure night vision might be 'useful at night. But their existence does not place any one of them above the other. They simply exist as 'Forms. Material. Useless without a person to put them into practice. And even then. . Their meaning is limited to a bubble of existence. That pops, When an individual dies. Pops, When a history dies. Pops, When a species dies. Sure, Altruism may be a useful method of organizing and succeeding in societies. But that is why it exists in we modern humans. It was useful. It made itself dear to us. But what value is a pattern any more than gold? It's just a colorful weave, Just a base metal. Useless without a person to give it value. Eh, Ignore the void part, Just nihilism. I don't agree with your programmer explanation. DNA simply follows it's nature, As with water.
God exists

"Never tell me the odds! " - Han Solo. Well, Really tell me the odds, I just enjoy old pop culture sometimes. I say again, Improbable events do happen. Most babies are born normal and healthy, Just because some are born with deformities now and then doesn't mean there was some supernatural intervention or cause. Also the raining fish thing again. I don't see why infinity would need an intelligent force to cause the prerequisites of life. If existence repeats for infinity, Eventually it'll hit that improbable double zero and meet the requirements for life. The way objective morality appears to fail logically does lead to absurdism, But hey, That's why there's a philosophy on it. Intrinsic? Sure, Maybe by DNA, But certainly in culture. DNA however, Changes. Culture, Changes. It does not exist perfectly now and forever. People are born 'evil, If you like. Same problem Tolkien worried about with his orcs, Already exists. There just isn't (I think) a deity responsible for it. Psychopaths. The color argument isn't bad, But doesn't upset my view of common held morality simply being patterns that emerge during certain times under certain conditions. There spectrums that you and I cannot see, And plenty of colorblind people in the world. One might argue that this does not stop objective morality from existing, And they're right. But they miss the rest of the colors. Our worlds in the front, Back, And sides start in black and white, We look up at a ceiling that saturates with orange, Green, Purple as we gain knowledge of the world, Concepts, And people within. But then, When a person glances down. . A void is seen, A fate, And a truth. Unavoidable, And waiting it's time. Bleh, Too emo, But anyway. I think we are all blind men in a fashion. Admiring the elephant. When we come across other cultures, They to are blind men. The elephant you might claim from this is objective morality, But more I say it's simply reality. In which horror can exist and be seen as right in the same existence in which justice can be seen as right. Even if we were to come across aliens, We both exist in reality to share as a common ground, But that is not so much morality. Yes, I use terms such as horror, Implying I believe in objective morality. But I am human after all. Raised by a similar culture after all. I can no more easily remove it than my arm. But still, My arm is only meat, Bone, And blood. And morality existence, Culture, And development. I still deny the existence of objective morality, But I do exist in a bubble of subjective morality. I did not mean to ignore it, But as I am so undereducated in that field, My reply boils down to it's complicated that's all. Not a good reply, But what I have. DNA, Evolution has rules I imagine. How else could we practice selective breeding, View natural selection, Or marvel at the Galapagos islands? Source Google Absurdism
God exists

Improbable just means less likely doesn't it? Life exists because certain conditions happened to be met, Even if unlikely it would happen. If it was more likely, Perhaps we would have Moon men and Martians for neighbors right now. (Not trying to be sarcastic there). Intelligent design of some type would be more believable to me if the conditions for life did not appear to be met. An oasis in the desert? Reasonable. A city with Hanging Gardens? That, Looks artificial. Fish may rain from the sky, Does it really have to mean a deity? SciTech mysteries rainingfrogs nytimes world Americas Honduras rain fish Unlimited force, Doesn't automatically mean deity does it? Also, Not sure I agree that it has been proven we live in an infinite energy universe. I don't believe in objective morality. And the most I'd be willing to admit to it is that certain patterns of morality are likely to emerge in intelligent animals during certain times under certain conditions. If Pascals wager makes you and other people happy, I think that's great. At most 'if successful your science argument just means intelligent design, Which doesn't rule out "Aliens" - Giorgio A. Tsoukalos If less successful, (as I see it). Maybe DNA and cells and everything are complicated. Just means to me that they are complicated. Water doesn't have to led and controlled to carve a canyon, It just has to follow it's nature, Over a long period of time. DNA, Animals, And cells don't need to do more to create and do amazing wonders, Than, Follow their own nature. Sorry it took a bit of time to reply, Busy at work, Sleep, And other. Also what type of God are you trying to define?
Wwe is fake

I am not sure what the "wrong wrong" is nor do you provide any counter-argument to my showing that injuries happen and blood does happen proving that the moves are real. Just because someone has punched someone once does not mean because skin is difficult to break with force its like an elastic band sure you can puncture it, but just stretching it or in this case punching it is immensely more difficult. I think you're comparing it to the UFC where the aim for weaker areas such as the nose. As for your claim about bruising that because bruising takes about 1-2 days to happen it doesn't form immediately not even UFC fighters have them. Sources: https://www.reference.com...
Wwe is fake

While granted the outcomes are scripted the moves are definitely real and cause real injuries to the wrestlers. We see from Bleacher Report that there has been a huge surge of injuries as of lately with concussions, torn rotator cuffs and even torn ACL to Seth Rollins. The claim that there is no blood in the WWE is just false as there have been many instances of blood in WWE matches they even have list of the 15 most bloodies matches. Sources: http://www.thesportster.com... http://bleacherreport.com...
Morality comes from evolution processes in society, not from the biblical God, Yahweh.

The god in the Bible is in no way a moral god at all in today's standards. I have herd the argument "If there is no god than there is no reason to be moral", but the Bible is more then enough proof that this is not true. Actually, if you are a follower of the Bible and take scripture as literal "truth", than the opposite is true, at least in American standards of morality. However, places in Middle East, like Sadi Arabia, may fail to see anything wrong, morally, with the Bible. I would like to get an opponent that believes that all of the Bible is literal truth, and that society should fallows the rules of god. Fist round is accepting, second will be the start of the debate. Thank you, and good luck.