BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should be no intercourse before the age of 18

Thank you for your reply! And since you live in Serbia, I'll also tell you that what Croatia did to Serbia was horrible. They shouldn't have gotten help from America! I'll reply to your counterarguments first: 1) You are right that babies don't happen often. There are a great deal of protection methods. But, should pregnancy still happen accidentally, the child will still have to tell their parents, get an abortion etc. I doubt these are "happy moments in life", but my opponent has shown that the amount of people affected by it are considerably smaller. I must still use this small group of people with the most negative consequences as a result of underaged sex, though. 2) I don't know for Serbia, but in my country you could actually be charged for underaged sex. The argument can be dropped, though, if this is not internationally true. But say, if a boyfriend is 18 and the girlfriend 16, wouldn't she be able to charge him? 3) Although that is true, I have said in my argument that people are not wise enough to know what they want. Once they're 18, they could really have what they want all the time. 4) A vow was not the best way to put it, that's true. I spoke of changing the morality, perhaps that's the best way to put it: currently, we all live believing that cheating is wrong. That is a common conception we have about cheating. Yet alot of people still do it. Sex once was like that, and it was a taboo. It should be like that again: people still are free to do it, but it is morally wrong not to be able to wait. Could you reply to the advantages I have given concerning this part? My counterarguments to your arguments: 1) This is true, but they would also feel more curious about the other sex. It used to be possible for people not to have sex before the age of 18, but now people have sexual desires at such a young age. People should simply suppress their desires until they are old enough to enjoy it. Just like driving a car on the road for car fanatics. 2) Naturally, yes, we do feel the need to make love. That is common with all humans. Yet we don't live in a natural society anymore, and it wouldn't be good if some people actually had their desires fulfilled while a majority is left standing with their desires unfulfilled. This is but one example of how our natural needs no longer concede with our unnatural society. 3) Here we could argue what "really loving" is, but if you really love someone wouldn't it be better to wait? After all, most relationships before the age of 18 do end. 4) Ditto on that, my brother. Although there exists an alternative: your right hand!
There should be no intercourse before the age of 18

Thanks for Ukraine thing! I live in Serbia and it works pretty much the same way. I will address your points now. 1) Babies don't happen often after sex. And in the cases where they do happen, abortion is a nice solution. I don't think finishing high school would make situation better. In my country there are above 20% unemployed people. People are struggling to find a job, even after finishing university. 2) Rape is crime. If two people want to have sex, no one has right to stop them. 3) If you want romantic relationship more then sex, it is good for you not to have sex. If someone wants sex more then romantic relationship, it is good for them to have sex. You perceive love as a very serious thing, and some people do not. For those people, this is not a good argument. 4) I don't like vows, and I don't take them seriously. Keeping promises for years is way too painful. Not everyone would vow if you asked them. Forcing vows would have as effect people breaking those vows in order to feel more free. It would indeed be a good thing, just like it would be a good thing if people could fly like an airplane, but it is not the case for consideration. I do like your points and the way you put them. I will make my points now. 1) It is hard for teenagers to resist their desires. They would feel deprived of something good. 2) Impulses that teenagers feel are very natural. Society says we should wait until we are wise, but our DNA disagrees. 3) If people in relationship really love each other, their relationship will feel incomplete. 4) Sex is good stress reliever. And not just stress. People accumulate need for violence when they feel oppressed. Significant part of this is disappears with satisfaction of sex.
There should be no intercourse before the age of 18

First I'd like to adress a few small things; I'm from Belgium and here after the age of 18 you leave high school for university (not sure if it's the same where you live?) Also, I've checked your profile and I agree with you on the Ukraine situation. You made very strong points there! Okay, here are my points: 1) After the age of 18, you can take care of the consequences. You'll be able to live alone, take care of a baby (if that is what happened). You'll have finished high school and will have a certain future and would even be able to take a year off before going to college. A baby would no longer be that much of a problem. 2) After the age of 18, you can legally do it. This means that afterwards, you can't possibly be charged with anything. 3) At the age of 18 you are significantly more wise. A lot of people can "feel like doing it", the way you said it (probably everyone already FEELS like doing it at earlier ages), but very little of them are actually wise enough to see that virginity is a big thing and that love is no joke. After the age of 18, regretting your actions will be less likely. But even for the few that do really love each other, isn't waiting more romantic than hurrying it? 4) If everyone vowed to wait until the age of 18, this would have 2 consequences. A: Alot less jealousy among teenagers. Everyone has heard them bragging, and it can hurt those who are less lucky in life. B: Generally, love would be much more erotic as some carnal desires would not be fulfilled. Couples will grow more towards one another as it will be so much more special. Exploring the other gender would be much more interesting as temptation will be a bigger factor. Curiosity would not be fulfilled in one big blow. It would also promote romance as we like it, since whenever we watch movies/ read books we never ache for the teenager to have sex. We prefer seeing love and characters slightly getting to know each other. Isn't this what we want in life? I'm eager to hear my opponent's thoughts!
There should be no intercourse before the age of 18

By intercourse, I do mean sex. It is up to my opponent to decide how low he/she would set the bar. Also, I do not want there to be sourcing. At least as little as possible. I believe sourcing internet sources is useless, as you can find pretty much anything on the internet. It might make you feel smarter or stronger, but almost every source on the internet has another one contradicting it. ONLY SOURCE if your opponent says the direct opposite of what you said. This debate should be based on reasoning and real-life experiences.
New characters for Smash Bros

I've never heard of "No. Get a life and look for a gf instead.". Is she from a new movie that came out? I guess I am absorbed in video games all the time.But anyways, Kyubi needs to be in Smash Bros. His attacks are mainly fire based, and he'd be pretty light. I'd imagine he'd be around the middle of the tier list, due to his attacks being pretty good, but he gets launched easily. His Down B also stuns enemies. And I'd love to see a Palutena's Guidance on Kyubi. Just imagine what Viridi has to say about this nine tailed fox spirit, and how Kyubi possibly tries to charm Viridi [Hoping the anime Kyubi gets in. Video game Kyubi's cool as well.]You should take a look at his wiki page so this makes a bit of sense: http://yokaiwatch.wikia.com...;
New characters for Smash Bros

You argue for any character of your choice being in Super Smash Bros, and say why it is better than mine. You must make a move set of 4 Special Moves (Neutral B, Up B, Side B Down B), and a Final Smash, at minimum. You must also give a reason why they should be in Smash Bros. First round is acceptance only, so just post who your character is. My character is Kyubi from Yo-kai Watch this time. I"ll be posting more than just the 4 Special Moves, though. But a good reason is better than a fancy move set, so keep this in mind. The voters will vote based off of which move set they think suits the character more, but more importantly the reason for coming to Smash Bros.
Joakim Noah is not good at anything

Kingyosef I'm sorry if I took this debate a little too serious. You can not look at stats, because he's a rookie. The Bulls didn't need him, but they drafted him anyways. He is behind Ben Wallace on the dept chart for Centers. As I quoted before, Dave Thorpe of Scouts Inc., says he was the victim of a bad rotation. You can't look at numbers just yet.
Joakim Noah is not good at anything

I think you are taking this debate too seriously, but i will try to be serious too. Joakim Noah ppg: 4.4 RPG: 3.10 apg: 0.9 in comparison to the average rookie stats for a player pick ninth who spent 4 years in college that is sub-par. He also lacks the athletiscm of an NBA forward, as well as the quickness. His shot is also very akward. He was drafted that high becuase of the fact that his team went won the NCAA championships twice, which has historically pushed players higher on the draft board, regardless of NBA potential. Basketball analysts have often called him overated.
Joakim Noah is not good at anything

Kingyosef: "He is not good at getting haircuts" -kingyosef HOw can you be bad at getting haircuts? Maybe that's the way he likes it. Just because you think it looks bad, why is he all the sudden bad at haircuts? "He never knows when to keep his mouth shut even scott skiles told him too shut up" -Kingyosef That is just a rookie thing. MOst rookies Will say what ever they want to say. A god example is Kellen Winslow Jr. When he was a new player in the NFL he was wild and said what he wanted to. Now he has matured and doesn't speak out. Also, show me proof scott skiles told him to shut up. It shows alot when he was just fired a couple days ago. "he should have played tennis like his dad, because no one on the bulls likes him" Once again, where is the proof. Maybe he wasn't good at tennis. He is an amazing basketball player. "Glen Davis blocked the hell out of him early this year"- King So? I play basketball and I get blocked. It doesn't mean I'm bad at it. It is just apart of the game. I still don't know what he is "bad at".
Joakim Noah is not good at anything

Kingyosef: Please be more specific on what Joakim Noah is "bad" at. He was good enough to be drafted 9th in the 2007 NBA draft that was better than 51 other players who did get drafted. There are many more that did not get drafted. He is averaging a point a minute, playing an average of 12 minutes. He has played in 24 games too. Dave Thorpe of Scouts Inc., says he was the victim of a bad rotation. He also is ranked 13th in rookies this year, but since the new coach he has scored 0 (DNP), 4, 0 (played only 4 minutes), 17 (in 18 minutes)points. Also, when the Bulls drafted him, there was controversy that they drafted him as the best player available rather that the best player for their team. Explain what he is BAD at.
Terrorists Are Heros

Spelling and Grammar: ConMy opponent misspelled the word heroes in the title. I also found a few grammatical errors over the course of my opponent's debate. Conduct: ConObvious because she forfeited the last round even with a 3 day waiting period between responses. Sources: TiedNeither me, nor my opponent posted any sources. Arguments: ConMy opponent did not uphold his BOP in this debate. His argument was that heroes are rarely admired for heroic qualities and so people who lack heroic qualities should also be considered heroes. However my opponent presupposes that people who are called 'heroes' are actually 'heroes'. Heroes are, according to our agreed definition, admired because of their brave or noble qualities. My opponent has not shown why terrorists possess these qualities.
Terrorists Are Heros

My opponent fails to relise that well people should only be honored for heroic and brave qualites this is rarely the case. Most heroes are not commonly accepted as heroes threw out the world.My opponent fails to understand what I am arguing. He believes that I am arguing that people should only be seen as heroes for having heroic qualities. I am not arguing this though. It is not up for consideration as it is in the definition of hero. admired for hisbrave deeds and noble qualities. The Chinese or American militaries being admired does not make them heroes. They are admired for non-heroic deeds(killing unarmed civilians) and so they are not heroes. All heroes have people who don't consider them to be heroes some people even consider one persons hero a to be a villain. So it is not necessarily a brave or noble deed that makes someone a hero but how they are viewed and each person has different opinions so one mans hero is another manst terrorist. Effectively proving that terrorists are herosHow does this prove terrorists are heroes? All it proves is that, according to our agreed upon definition of hero, most respected "heroes" are not actually so. This does not upgrade the status of modern terrorists but downgrades the status of modern heroes.
Terrorists Are Heros

"The Chinese military, while seen as heroic from the viewpoint of the Chinese, run into the same problems I pointed out for terrorists. While they are admired by others who support their cause, this does not alone make them heroes. They must be admired for brave and heroic qualities. Any military killing unarmed civilians are not heroic or brave. The exact same goes for the U.S. military. Dropping the atom bombs is seen by most as what was needed, but something not to be proud of. The end of WW2 put the U.S. in a terrible situation and no one would argue that sending a plane to drop a bomb is heroic, supporters would only say that it was an unfortunate necessity."My opponent fails to relise that well people should only be honored for heroic and brave qualites this is rarely the case. Most heroes are not commonly accepted as heroes threw out the world. All heroes have people who don't consider them to be heroes some people even consider one persons hero a to be a villain. So it is not necessarily a brave or noble deed that makes someone a hero but how they are viewed and each person has different opinions so one mans hero is another manst terrorist. Effectively proving that terrorists are heros
Terrorists Are Heros

In response to me saying that terrorists usually attack unarmed civilians instead of military bases, my opponent simply brings two examples of other terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians. I'm not exactly sure what my opponent is getting at though. If he is arguing that the Chinese and American militaries are seen as heroes, this runs into a problem. The Chinese military, while seen as heroic from the viewpoint of the Chinese, run into the same problems I pointed out for terrorists. While they are admired by others who support their cause, this does not alone make them heroes. They must be admired for brave and heroic qualities. Any military killing unarmed civilians are not heroic or brave. The exact same goes for the U.S. military. Dropping the atom bombs is seen by most as what was needed, but something not to be proud of. The end of WW2 put the U.S. in a terrible situation and no one would argue that sending a plane to drop a bomb is heroic, supporters would only say that it was an unfortunate necessity. My opponent then says that The Chinese and American militaries are homored for killing unarmed civilians. This does not change the point. The same point I made for the terrorists again applies to honored militaries. They are not being honored for heroic or brave acts, therefore they are not heroes. My opponent has not upheld his BOP and so I urge a Con vote.
Terrorists Are Heros

My opponent argues:"terrorists do not usually attack military bases but in most cases bomb unarmed civilians."This would be true in the cases of Osama bin Laden who made the 9/11 attacks on the world trade center, Tiananmen Square when Chinese military attacks unarmed civilians the United States dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which are not military bases but heavily populated civilian cities. "terrorists might be admired by some, but they are not admired for brave deeds or noble qualities."My opponent believes that terrorists are not admired for what they have done yet the Chinese military is still considered to have be full of heroic soldiers, and the soldiers who dropped the bombs were honored for causing terror on unarmed citizens. Conclusion Although terrorists do harm unarmed civilians most of the time they are still recognized as heroes. Terrorists are not always certian groups or people like Osama Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda but sometimes they are countries that claim to be the heroes like the United States.
Terrorists Are Heros

It appears as though this is a definition debate where we are merely arguing as to whether or not x fits the definition of y. X are terrorists and y are heroes. My opponent's argument is thus an argument that the definition of terrorists fits into the definition of hero. Let's look at that claim in detail. My opponent writes: terrorists are heroes because although they do inflict fear onto others, they are admired by their country or fellow terrorists and in most instances they sacrifice there lives. From this my opponent provides two arguments. I will deal with each of them below. ""They are admired by their country or fellow terrorists. ""Here my opponent believes that because terrorists are admired by some, they are heroes. I believe she is arguing that they fit the second part of the definition of hero which I provided( admired for hisbrave deeds and noble qualities). But this part of the definition does not only say that they are admired, as my opponent is arguing, but it mentions the reason that a hero is admired. A hero is not admired for inspiring fear in others, but is admired for "brave deeds and noble qualities". But perhaps one could argue that it is noble to inspire fear in the enemy. This could be true, but terrorists do not do that. Rarely do terrorists plot attacks against military bases. For the most part they bomb places made up of civilian populations who are not necessarily for either side. Killing unarmed civilians can be recognized as not being a brave deed. So terrorists might be admired by some, but they are not admired for brave deeds or noble qualities. ""in most instances they sacrifice there lives""While this act may be noble under certain conditions, in the case of terrorists it often is not. As I already mentioned, terrorists do not usually attack military bases but in most cases bomb unarmed civilians. This point made by my opponent faces the same problem as her last point. ConclusionNo deed is necessarily noble on it's own. Sacrificing one's life is not noble when it is to help inspire fear in unarmed civilians and being admired is not noble when it is for commiting an atrocious act. The resolution has been negated.
Terrorists Are Heros

"Heros: I couldn't actually find a definition for this word but I assume my opponent meant the word 'heroes' so I will define that word instead." "Hero: a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for hisbrave deeds and noble qualities." Thank you for defining the word Hero I apologize for my grammatical error. As I had accidentally referred to terrorists as sandwiches although that would make for a much more interesting debate it is not we are debating. As for my argument I say that terrorists are heroes because although they do inflict fear onto others, they are admired by their country or fellow terrorists and in most instances they sacrifice there lives. For example the Kamikaze pilots from Japan that fought in WWII caused a great amount of terror to aircrafts and ships but the Japanese looked at the as though they were heroes for sacrificing there lives.
Terrorists Are Heros

Before we begin this debate I will define the terms of the resolution.Terrorist: a person who terrorizes or frightens others. Heros: I couldn't actually find a definition for this word but I assume my opponent meant the word 'heroes' so I will define that word instead.Hero: a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for hisbrave deeds and noble qualities.As per the rules I will let my opponent begin with her arguments.
Smash Bros: Nintendo Edition

This is a debate for new characters for Super Smash Bros. But the requested character must be owned by Nintendo, or at least has games for a Nintendo device.Rules:1. You cannot request a character that was already featured in a Smash Bros game. So you can't request Pichu (Melee), Solid Snake (Brawl), Ice Climbers (Melee, Brawl), or any other already present fighters.2. You're required to post 4 special moves (Neutral B, Side B, Down B, Up B), and the Final Smash. All else is optional.3. There must be a good reason for that character to be in Smash. Either widely requested, viability, or popularity is valid.4. No trolling. Trolling includes making nonsensical statements, some argument relating to Modifications (like character skins you'd download from a website. See shofu's videos for information regarding this), or choosing an already present fighter, like Bayonetta or Wolf.My character is Kyubi, a character from Yo-kai Watch. [Here's the wiki page: http://yokaiwatch.wikia.com...]
Paintball is a healthy sport, which creates usefull skills.

Well excuse me for taking your title literally. I never made a correlation between Boot Camp and Paintball, but again, it's not misrepresented. If people are willing to pay for it fine, I don't really see where this debate is going, but I will argue anyway. Have you ever played a "real" game of Laser Tag? That's not people running around, it's people moving slowly, using hand signals, etc. It is actually like a real military operation. If some idiot runs around shooting everyone in a serious match, he'll most likely be taken down. Your perception of Laser Tag seems like the same perception a "yahoo" would have of paintball. In paintball, it is my understanding from paintball, is that you can hit someone anywhere, it a serious game of laser tag, you have maybe six places you can shoot at to hope to hit. It's more precise. There are different levels of gaming between the two, but I believe paintball is taken seriously, and Laser Tag really isn't, judging from your perception from it. The advantages from paintball can be found in any team activity in the world.
Paintball is a healthy sport, which creates usefull skills.

DrAcula, you don't seem to have taken a side on this debate, I didn't say that paintball is misrepresented as a good sport, I said it is misrepresented as a way to cause havoc by shooting old people. You also seem to overlook the fact that the point of paintball is fun, the benefits are just side effects, for lack of a better word. So a boot camp/training camp cannot be paralleled to paintball. Also, I did not say anything about the cost of paintball being cheap, honestly, I would rather play with someone who is willing to work to get their gear, it shows me that they are serious about the sport, and not some yahoo who is trying to make a bad name for the sport. On your argument pertaining to water guns, and laser tag, neither of these two provide the same skill as paintball. In paintball you need to be able to be aware of your enemy, and be alert at all times, in a water/laser fight, your enemy has to be at a rather close range for a "kill" and such skills are not required, also, laser tag, on the scale required to build these sills, is a very rare thing. You don't build teamwork running around in a room full of mirrors shooting everything you see, nor do you build any of the other skills which you do in paintball, and I agree with you on the stealth argument, but it is a skill you learn, regardless of how you use it later in life.