BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Changing the drinking age

(a) Protecting oneself from harm The science speaks for itself that the brain is not fully developed at 18. Drinking alcohol below 21 causes brain development problems. See source 1. My opponent asks "if the brain is not fully developed then why are the people at the age of 18 punished the same as anyone over 21 for any violation of the law?" This question is a red herring. I don't know nor is it relevant. (b) protecting others from harm CON also states that it is irrelevant that those between age 16 and 24 make 42 percent of fatal accidents since drinking age is 21. However, by setting the age to 21, you are eliminating a huge portion of fatal accidents.: "Michigan, for instance, had an increase of about 20 percent in deaths resulting from drunk driving when it reduced the drinking age from 21 to 18 in the Vietnam War era" - Dr. Volpe (http://tinyurl.com...). Clearly it is not "easier to manage them" as my opponent states. Rebuttals: Pro does not refute. These are dropped.
Changing the drinking age

My opponent states the government has the drinking age set at 21 because the brain is not fully developed until the age of 21. But if the brain is not fully developed then why are the people at the age of 18 punished the same as anyone over 21 for any violation of the law? If the brain is not fully developed then they are not thinking like an adult, why are they punished like one? The fact that my opponent states that people between the ages 16 and 24 make up 42 percent of fatal accidents is irrelevant because the legal age to drink is 21, so the age restriction is apparently not working. If the age was changed to 18 children would not have to hide the fact that they are drinking and it would be a lot easier to manage those who are drinking and driving.
Changing the drinking age

(a) Protect oneself from harm The government has banned drugs and has created safety regulations in the interest of protecting citizens. There are many problems associated with development for underage drinking. The brain does not fully develop until the age of 21[1]. Studies show that alcohol is deterrent to the process[2] (b) Protect others from harm The government should protect others from harm. In the US, before the law raised the minimum drinking age to 21,Dr. Volpe Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving stated: "Those between 16 and 24, although making up only 20 percent of licensed drivers, they are involved in more than 42 percent of fatal alcohol related crashes" [3] Rebuttal: Pro states that if one can fight a war, one can drink. This is non sequitur. Persons also are not allowed to make their own decisions at the age of 18, hence why the law exists. http://tinyurl.com...[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3]
Changing the drinking age

The drinking age should be changed back to 18. The fact that we punish people as if they are adults at the age of 18 means that we should also allow them to make their own decisions. Also a person can sign up to go to war a fight for his country and kill people, but he can't come home and have a drink at a local bar. If we are giving them punishment as an adult we should be giving them the responsibility as well.
sex

Of course, and many others are like you. All i am stating is that mexicans have sex every day and dont get caught because if we get in trouble it is considered "racist" so, white people are wrong and should be wiped from existence. only because you cant have sex because you have baby pablo johnson. i have a raptor 726" ill send you a pic if you need proof. also here is an article i wrote stating that mexicans cant get caught. i went into a body building class and fucked every girl there. cops got mad. but they let me go because i am mexican. http://forum.bodybuilding.com...
Resolved: Homeschooling is better than public schooling

As my opponent is from the United States, I will justify my arguments with statistical evidence from the U. S. and demonstrate that homeschooling is not the cause of more successful education. According to HSLDA (Homes School Legal Defense Association: . http://www.hslda.org...), the average income of a homeschooling family is $52,000 annually (marginally higher than the average income of a typical American family). Studies have shown that a family's financial standing significantly impacts on a child's ability to succeed academically (. http://www.irp.wisc.edu...). Regions with more developed educational infrastructure and higher median family incomes will have children score better on testing (e. g. . http://www.daytondailynews.com...). When comparing the test scores of Home-schooled children with their public school counter-parts of equal or approximate family structure (income, state of parents' marriage, etc), there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Emotional stability at home is a fundamental pillar for the ability to emotionally invest in scholarly success. 81% of home-schooled children live with both parents, and 54% of home-schooled children have a parent that is not in the workforce (. http://www.rohus.nu...) compared with 43%-51% for public or private schooled. Homeschooled children are more likely to have two or more siblings. The demographic qualities by themselves justify the home-schooled students currently have a higher average – not because of homeschooling. Public education has every advantage of Homeschooling (and more). While I feel that properly formed and funded Public education offers a more constructive forum for educational growth. In regards to the statistics in favour of homeschooling, I contend that someone's success does not necessarily pivot on the flavour of education but an individual's drive to learn more and grow - and that drive is derived from the conditions at home. I leave the question to the audience, given the evidence, is a properly formed public education system better than homeschooling?
Resolved: Homeschooling is better than public schooling

Unfortunately, the argument ablout adopting homeschooling as a mainstream option is not essentially germane--we are only talking about educational forms. Other forms of socialization are available besides school--church, youth groups, co-ops, events, etc. Flexibility means general schedule flexibility, such as the ability of myself to be off on Modays and Tuesdays to coincide with my father's schedule. Socialization only wiht a particular age group is useless, businesses feature wide age ranges. In the US, atheistic only philosophies are taught as a rule. I agree wiht 4.b, but it is unfortunately not the case.
Resolved: Homeschooling is better than public schooling

Supposing my opponent and I have agreed the objective of education is to prepare the population for their roles in society, I will attempt to demonstrate why public (or private) schooling is ultimately better mainstream tool for education than homeschooling. I argue that: 1) While homeschooling statistics indicate that children taught under this method become more successful financially and scholastically, this is due to the types of individuals who attempt to home-school their children and not necessarily because of homeschooling itself. 2) If homeschooling were adopted in a mainstream fashion (taken outside the usual demographic of homeschooling parents), we would witness a decline in the success rate of home-schooled children. 3) Students of public education often have children younger. Large families are important for the working class, thus public education is better at preparing individuals who desire the working class as their role. I will now rebut your points: 1) Public education, used in conjunction with customized tutoring provided by that education system will provide equal if not better result compared to homeschooling. Public education forces the child to recognize and adapt to different teaching and expectational patterns when used correctly. Students who take part in social events and actively seek assistance in their education are statistically more likely to perform better in public or private school. Most public high schools will allow students to enter courses beyond their grade-level if they have obtained the prerequisite credits. A well formed public education system is flexible and customizable to a student's needs. 2) Learning how to deal with bullies or disliked coworkers is paramount to successful operation in social networks or businesses. A lack of exposure to these kinds of interactions can lead to higher levels of anxiety in later life when they are met. 3) In order to prepare student's for the realities of the working world, it is important to have some rigidity. However, public school teachers may also be flexible in terms of due dates and absences (such as for community events one is involved in). Being forced to negotiate with strangers (and not just our own parents) becomes an important skill later in life. 4.a) Religious pluralism and secularism are of absolute importance for maintaining social tolerance and building an understanding within each of us to respect the thoughts and opinions of others. I am from Canada, therefore any argument about the nature of the heritage of the United States does not apply to me (Canada is multicultural). 4.b) Subjects such as creationism are still taught here in Canada (albeit in philosophy class). In a properly formed public system, teachers only instruct on schools of thought, not what ought be considered objectively true. It is more important to give someone the tools of understanding to let them choose their own path, than to cage someone's mind within indoctrination and ignorance.
Resolved: Homeschooling is better than public schooling

First of all, definitions. 1. I view education as the complete package. Academic knowledge, social skills, etc. 2. I wish to compare simply the educational styles. Simply put, I don't desire to debate the worst possible aspects of homeschooling such as neglectful parents, etc. I wish to compare a conscientious, educationally minded parent and an average school system. I'm not talking about the best or worst ends of the spectrum. I simply propose that homeschooling, as a method, is better than public schooling. You may assume as stated above, but the majority of the focus is to be placed on the schooling time, not after hours instruction in either type of schooling. I will now begin the debate. There are numerous benefits of homeschooling. Following I will list some of the outstanding ones. 1. One-on-one teacher-student interaction, which allows the learning style and speed to be tailored to the student involved, rather than being forced to move at the average class pace, which may be too fast or too slow for the student. 2. The absence of harmful peer interaction. By harmful, I mean the constant proximity during the school day to ones peers, which may bully the student or provide a bad example, etc. Homeschooling allows students to select their friends and interact only with the people that they and their parents deem appropriate. 3. Flexible scheduling--the student will be able to select off days to correlate with the schedule of the parents. Dad off on Monday and Tuesday? It's easy when homeschooling to work the schedule around events, etc. 4. Ideologically consistent education. This is the ability of the parent to educate their child within their own belief system. A Christian, Muslim, or other conservative religious student would not be forced to undergo teaching about useless and counterproductive subjects like the obscene sex-ed classes. This would give parents educational freedom. These are only a few of the benefits of homeschooling. I will now turn my attention to the detrimental effects of public schooling. 1. All of the effects as listed above have opposites which are present in public schooling, and are detrimental to education. 2. Added to this are the liberal philosophy of many school districts which, as a rule, discount our Christian heritage, teach exclusively the hypothesis of evolution and the harmful and illogical notion of multiculturalism. All of these are serious flaws in the public school curriculum. I will allow my opponent to present his arguments on the negative aspects of homeschooling and the positive aspects of public schooling, which I will then attempt to refute, etc.
Resolved: Homeschooling is better than public schooling

I hope to learn something new and perhaps I will be dissuaded from my position before the end of the debate. Is my opponent referring to education in terms of academic knowledge (if so, how should we measure that? ), or social prowess and hands-on skills as well? Inversely, may I argue from the position that education's function should be to ready an individual for society? Thus, good education is anything that helps align an individual to a prospect goal or niche in society? May I assume that public schooling is considered in conjunction with education from parenting? Have fun and good luck!
Resolved: Homeschooling is better than public schooling

I will attempt to show that homeschooling, defined as either strictly at home or with a co-op, is a better form of education that public schooling. We will only discuss educationally related issues, not finances. My opponent will argue that public schools offer better education than do home schools. Rd. #1 is for acceptance and definition questions only. I look forward to a fun debate. Good Luck!
Obamacare

Beagle continues to put forth the argument that others need to take care of him/her. The world is most certainly not fair and nobody promised Beagle a rose garden of life just as they did not promise the rest of us that. Nobody minds chipping in for young people that are starting out. Beagle continues to use the term racist. Stop using it, the race card helps nobody. I have seen hard working people of all races, religions, etc. Beagle is a communist which simply means he wants the world handed to him. There has to come a point where you become self sufficient. Do I mind being taxed for the elderly who worked all their lives and need some help with medical care? No, I do not. What I have a problem with is people taking advantage of the system, paying almost nothing for health care and then buying a new car, clothes etc. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to the billing for health care. I have worked for insurance companies and in billing. Someone has to pay. Beagle wants everyone to have everything but someone has to pay for it. If everyone took this attitude who would pay? Consider it like a wagon. If the few truly needy ride in the wagon while the rest of us pull it there is no hardship for anyone. When everyone gets in the wagon who will pull it? No Beagle, start taking responsibility for yourself. Like I said, you can get a second job and start pulling your weight. Many of us have done it and it does work. Racism works all ways too. I would call you a racist. You need to leave race out of the picture. It has nothing to do with anything. As far as a troll, you would be the definition of this. Trolling for anything you do not have to earn. People like you are turning us into a third world country. Nothing is free in the end Beagle. There is a cost for everything. Another thing, stop trolling the internet for articles that support your nonsensical opinions. I could do the same.
Obamacare

I am not surprised that Beagle is a communist. Communism fails for a reason. With communism, there is no incentive to strive towards excellence. If everyone gets the same benefit where is the incentive to work harder? Beagle also makes the accusation several times that I am a racist, I am not. He is. It would have been alright for me to use a picture of anyone else but not the one that was most readily available to me. Beagle quotes many authors but fails to realize these are not facts. They are opinions. To support Obama care someone's premiums have to go up. Beagle does not understand the health insurance industry but I do. I have worked in health care for a long, long time. When hospitals bill for inpatient beds those with private insurance are billed more. Medicaid and Medicare are billed less for bed days. This is a fact. So, when so many are given private insurance for so cheap someone has to pay a higher premium to make up for this. Insurance companies are not non profit organizations. As far as wealth and sharing it with others there is a limit. There is no incentive for those who were "not born well" to work towards what they want. There are too many people in this country that feel entitled to everything. They come in all colors and religion too. It is time that everyone pull their own weight. My spouse and I started out early with a family. We had a system. One worked overtime while the other stayed home with the kids. We had 2 kids, not 5 because we could not have supported more than 2. We got our bachelors and masters degrees by alternating enrollment in college, one went to school and then the other one went. We also took jobs that were hard to support our family, jobs nobody wants to take today because they feel it is beneath them or its too hard. Everyone is entitled to human rights but it ends there. Nobody is entitled to reap the benefits of others who have worked hard to get where they are. If you cannot afford health care get a 2nd job, we did. If you cannot afford health insurance for kids, don't have them. If you cannot afford health insurance get a roommate. Don't expect other people to carry you through life. You may have to forego the car and the clothes for awhile to become self sufficient but many others have done it. I also want to say Beagle it would be helpful if you would form your own opinions instead of reading those of others. Your time would be better spent working more and obtaining an education so you, too, would be self sufficient.
Obamacare

I am against Obamacare because I have to pay for it as a taxpayer. Beetlejuice has said I am a wife beater and racist because I am against the entitlement program. I feel people should work for what they have. Figure it out, don't have kids if you cannot even provide food and health insurance for yourself. Don't tell me about the disparity between rich and poor. Nobody in this country is oppressed. If you work hard you can have that American dream but nobody is entitled to it. It has to be earned. Health insurance costs money, my premiums should not be higher just because I can pay. I can pay because I run my own business, save money, and have never bought a new car. I do own a house, but not a McMansion. So tell me why, Beetlecrap, everyone is entitled to health insurance? Earn it, because as far as I am concerned, you have a right to earn it!
Farting is perfectly natural and you should be able to fart when around your wife or girlfriend

You are starting your argument from 'her' view. Fair enough. I am asking however to be philosophical and think beyond 'her' view for a moment. Think about the universal "fart moment". Think objectively and question where her reactions are coming from. Are they hers or conditioned? By doing such you can help both yourself and your gal overcome these issues with your farting. I say this because I worry your position is: It is wrong because she doesn't like it. Really? Is that your answer? You should feel embarrassed? Why can't she laugh it off? No harm, no foul - except for some odor (pun intended). Perhaps a 'grow up' from her or a joke etc. What you have brought up however that is quite illuminating, is 'fart shame'. Shame is toxic to all relationships. It is rude? Where does that come from? Can we philosophize about that? As far as the smell ya but we all have to put up with moments of 'mundanity in a relationships'. That is the give and take or intimate relationships. It should not be so dramatic I am arguing. Hey, I am not perfect, and yes she is more prefect but not absolutely perfect and therefore there can still be a debate? Yes? Instead talk about essence of rudeness. Talk about why knee jerk reactions by women can't be challenged.
Farting is perfectly natural and you should be able to fart when around your wife or girlfriend

"As far as sexual mood. We can't be 24/7 on 'sexual mood' alert. This isn't realistic. For the fella or the gal."Perhaps. However, you will still be disrespecting her. If she does not want you to, you should respect that. Even if you do not, it is simply proper manners. Either way, there is no good reason to think you should fart in front of your wife/ girlfriend. Why not just avoid that? "You gotta just live and be you."Some of the worst people in history have lived by this principle. This is not a very compelling "ought" argument from my opponent. "Yes you have to work at keeping the romance alive in a relationship but what I am arguing about is the conflation of a fart into an 'oh my god' situation which I think is rooted in some social conditioning that is not merely experiential. I fart and now I am not getting any?"Yes, because it is rude. It stinks, and makes an unpleasant noise. There is no good reason why you cannot leave the room. I would be embarrassed if I farted in front of my girlfriend. Even if you are comfortable with someone, I do not find that a convincing reason to run around and fart around her. "What I am plumping for is some wiggle room between two people that know each other well so as to let some of this petty stuff go."If it so petty, then why start a debate about it? Don't you think it would just be easier to, I don't know, not fart in front of your girlfriend, especially when you know she does not like it? You want to make her feel sexy, like you still care about what she thinks about you, instead of just looking at her as someone you are "used to". When you fart around her, she will feel like you are not trying anymore like when you first met, and her self-esteem will lower. I do not blame you her for holding out on you. Stop cutting the cheese around your lover. It is deflationary to the ego, and you should be not proud of accomplishing such a feat.The resolution has been negated.
Farting is perfectly natural and you should be able to fart when around your wife or girlfriend

As far as sexual mood. We can't be 24/7 on 'sexual mood' alert. This isn't realistic. For the fella or the gal. You gotta just live and be you. Yes you have to work at keeping the romance alive in a relationship but what I am arguing about is the conflation of a fart into an 'oh my god' situation which I think is rooted in some social conditioning that is not merely experiential. I fart and now I am not getting any? What I am plumping for is some wiggle room between two people that know each other well so as to let some of this petty stuff go.
Farting is perfectly natural and you should be able to fart when around your wife or girlfriend

Passing wind can really kill a sexual mood. This may make your wife/ girlfriend feel like she is not sexy if you do not even care enough not to fart in her presence. Also, farting releases a foul, unpleasant odor that nobody really wants to smell to be honest. I think your best bet is to not cut the cheese around your wife/ girlfriend. It is only proper etiquette.
Trump declaring an emergency is abuse of his power and the Constitution

so you are willing to put families in danger but, Yet we have victims who lost their families members but, You still have yours. So why would you give two cents. The governors don"t care if the united states border patrol provides evidences. So what? I guess that everyone should support trafficking people and whatever because wall is offensive to people who doesn"t care about their neighbors. You know what trump should give a couple options because you cannot have everything and if I do not want what you want. Well, To freaking bad! I have bad news for you fools that is called "Dictatorship "