BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

You are absolutely correct in that the Furniture store has the authority to select the terms that the Standard Form contract would contain. It can be argued that the Furniture store selected the most obscure terms to confuse the specific customer base that would be more than likely to use this "Rent-a-Center" form of purchasing. With the expectation that this constituent base would either lack the educational level to understand the terms or would be in a situation wherein they would feel they are left no other option, or bargaining power to balance out the effects of the obscure terms based on the fact that it is a Standard Form Contract which cannot be negotiated. Absence any additional facts presented in this fact pattern it cannot be determined if Williams had any other options to select another store within her locale or if there was the option of another furniture store which offered the same "Rent-a-Center" type purchasing. So while it appears that Williams made the conscience decision to sign the contract without more facts we cannot determine if there was any other alternative which would give Williams bargaining power to effectively equalize the contract terms to not be one sided in favor of the Furniture Store. As such, I will agree with the Courts holding in this instance to remand for further consideration and investigation of pertinent facts to make the final determination.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

There is a reason standard form contracts exist. It's completely unreasonable for anyone to expect that in a business like the furniture store business that they could make specific contracts for each individual transaction by factoring each individual customers situation. The standard form contract keeps everything simple, fair, and equal which is safe and smart when running a business. Once again unconscionably has to do with absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties and that meaningfulness of the choice is negated by a gross inequality in bargaining power. If we look at each party individually, the furniture store has a choice in what terms are in its contact and since furniture is arguably not a necessity they don't have bargaining power. If we look at Williams, she has the choice of whether or not to sign the contract, purchase the stereo, and she even has the choice of what furniture store to shop from. The point is that she had plenty of choice and because of that, the interest rates are irrelevant in this case when talking about unconscionably. Therefore the case should be decided in favor of the Walker-Thomas furniture store.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

The fact that the Walker-Thomas Furniture store is able to obtain an additional $12,200.00 from Williams for items valued at $1,800.00 based on the terms and conditions of the contract is a Prima Facie "loan sharking" contract. While it is common in this type of "Rent-a-center" business to protect its interest and business survival, it is unconscionable to charge more than 6 times the value of an item. What specifically makes the contract terms obscure, are the terms regarding the collective security of all purchases, "and all payments now and hereafter made by [purchaser] shall be credited pro rata on all outstanding leases, bills, and account due". This term is forcing Williams to keep balance until she can pay her account balance in full. We see as a result of this term Williams has paid out an additional $12, 200.00 more than the amount of her original purchase price. As an example, if Williams makes a purchase today for $50.00 and makes her required $25.00 monthly installment and purchase another item for $100.00 and subsequently makes her required $25.00 monthly installment payment Williams would have paid for the total amount for the first item, but because she made the $100.00 purchase that $50.00 and the $100.00 item would be in jeopardy of repossession by Walker-Thomas should William miss any subsequent required $25.00 installment payment despite the fact that Williams did pay the purchase price of the first item. The obscure term can be argued to be unconscionable based on Williams financial status and that she did not have a meaningful choice in the matter but to accept the terms of the contract in order to make purchases apparently over the course of 5 years as a customer of Walker-Thomas Furniture. As would any sagacious business savvy company check the credit worthiness of an installment paying customer; Walker Thomas Furniture knew Williams financial status and her family composition. The "rent-a-center" type businesses are based on the fact that there are people who cannot afford to pay for items in full and will require to make installment payments. In this instance the terms of the contract are obscure in that it craftily increases the price of any installment purchased items and holds hostage previously purchased items until the purchaser can reach a zero account balance. The obscure term and the resulting significant over payment for items purchased on installment payments makes the contract unconscionable.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

While it may be arguable that the contract slightly favors the Walker-Thomas furniture store, this alone is not enough to call the terms unconscionable due to the fact that any stipulations in this specific contract that seem to favor the furniture store is arguably necessary in these high risk furniture store dealings. The furniture store is taking the risk when by letting the customers have physical possession of the items, while the item is not payed off. Due to this risk the furniture store needs to have certain stipulations in their contract to protect themselves not only from transactions with individuals but for overall survival of the business. What you're referring to as "obscure" , any reasonable person would call sagacious. Plus, even if it were the case that the terms of the contract were obscure, which they weren't, Williams knew the terms before signing the contract and she choose to sign it so the culpability is on her. Williams is the one that that broke her side of the contract and defaulted on a payment, a contract that she probably should have never signed in the first place, not because the terms were obscure, since they weren't, but because she knew she had a big family to take care of and she should have known there was a big chance she couldn't afford the stereo. In your argument you're manipulating the meaning of "meaningful choice".
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

Based upon my premises 3, 4 and 5 and your premises 8, the terms of the contract were unconscionable in that every purchase resulted in that item to carry a balance due until the balance due on all items purchased, regardless of the timing of the purchase, are paid in full. Further, the term of the contract stated that each purchased item was secured by the previously purchased items. Based on these obscure terms alone the contract is unconscionable. The contract terms are not favorable to Williams and do not provide meaningful choice. If Williams makes a purchase today and pays it in full and soon thereafter purchases another item on installments based on the terms of the contract the new item purchased on installments will now be secured by the item previously purchased and paid for; and a default of an installment payment on the second purchased item would result in Williams losing both the item paid for and the item that was subject of the default. Once you pay for the item it is believed that you now own the item. However, according to the terms of the contract Williams will never own any of her items until she has a zero balance on her account despite having paid for items in full. This leaves Williams no meaningful choice. According to the facts over the course of 5 years Williams has paid to Walker Thomas Furniture Co. a total of $14,000.00; however the total of all the purchases made by Williams during this same time came to only $1,800.00. As such Williams overpaid the furniture company in the amount of $12,200.00 for the purchased items and still did not have ownership of any of the items previously purchased. We do not know how much any previously purchased item cost based on the facts; however, regarding Williams total purchase price in comparison to how much she actually paid over the course of 5 years is evidence of the unconscionability of the contract terms. Furthermore, Williams only showed a balance of $164 owed to the furniture store. If Williams total cost for items purchased was $1,800.00 the balanced owed of $164 would indicate that some, if not most, items purchased were paid for in full, but because of the obscure terms Williams still would not receive the title until she reached a zero balance. All of this is favorable to the Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. and there is no meaningful choice for Williams her only recourse is to reach a zero balance in order to have enjoyment of the purchased items as the owner. Therefore the contract terms are unconscionable and the ruling should be in favor of Williams.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

1. Appellate Williams bought a stereo set from the Walker-Thomas furniture company. (511.3.3) 2. Williams defaulted on her payments shortly after the purchase. (511.3.4) 3. The terms of the purchase were contained in a printed form contract. (511.1.2) 4. The terms of the contract were accepted by Williams at the time of the purchase. 5. The contracts clearly states that the Walker-Thomas furniture company can repossess an item(s) if the purchaser defaulted in the payment of any monthly installment. (511.1.3) 6. Williams did default, giving the furniture company the right to repossess the items. 7. It's William's, and not the furniture store's, responsibility to know what she can afford based on her living situation. 8. Unconscionability includes the absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties. (512.4.1) 9. Meaningful choice is negated by a gross inequality of bargaining power. (512.4.2) 10. The furniture store did not have bargaining power because a stereo was not a necessity in this case 11. Therefore the contract was not unconscionable and the case should be decided in favor of the Walker-Thomas furniture company. William's knew the term of the contract and she made the choice to enter into the contract. She also knew what she could and could not afford and she made the choice to purchase an item that she could not afford. She defaulted on her payment and the contract clearly states that if she defaulted on any payment the furniture store could repossess the item. Also, the contract was not unconscionable due to the fact that a stereo is not a necessity and thus the furniture store had no bargaining power.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

(1) Unconscionable is defined as going far beyond what is usual and proper (2) The terms of the contract regarding the monthly installment payments are effectively obscure (511, 2, 1 and 2) (3) The obscure payment terms resulted in each purchased item to carry a balance due on every item until the balance due on all items are paid in full or liquidated. (511, 2, 2) (4) Further, each debt incurred at the time of purchase of each item was secured by the right to repossess all the items previously purchased. (511, 2, 3) (5) Furthermore, each new item purchased automatically became subject to a security interest arising out of the previous dealings, as described in premise 4 above. (511, 2, 3) (6) Premise 4 individually and both 4 and 5 collectively go far beyond what is usual and proper. _________________________________________________________________________________ (7) Thus the contract terms are unconscionable and should result in the ruling in favor of Williams. The purchase and payment terms of the contract are beyond what is usual and proper, in that the terms are constructed so that every purchase on an installment contract is secured by all items purchased from the vendor by the purchaser. Should the purchaser default on an installment payment the vendor is allowed to repossess all items purchased as result of the terms of purchase and security. Therefore, the contract is unconscionable and the repossession of all items purchased should not be enforced.
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

There are also no facts to support the claim that the furniture formed their contract in the way that they did because they wanted to trick their customers. Plus it's completely ridiculous to imply that, that was their intention. If someone didn't undercurrent a contract but they chose to sign it then they are still responsible for their side of the contract. Even if we accept that she didn't have another store to go to, she still didn't necessarily have to but a contract. That is one choice that she made that is in the facts and that can't be refuted. At the end of the day she violated the terms on a contract that she chose to sign and she should have to face the consequences.
America does not have a drinking problem

Rebuttal to Pro's rebuttal: Death is death and everyone dies, yes. That doesn't alter the statistics I provided nor the fact that Liver Cirrhosis causes many deaths. Also, you claim that there was much more drinking in the 1800s than there is now, have you any statistics to back that up? Rebuttal to Pro's argument: There are so many people who consume alcohol that you can't possibly believe that every single one of those people all drink for the same reason(s). Some people may drink alcohol to eradicate the feeling of loneliness. Some people may also drink alcohol socially (to fit in or enhance the occasion) and some people may drink because they like the flavor of alcohol etc etc. There's no single reason for consuming alcohol. Also, isn't red wine consumed in church on occasions to represent Jesus's blood? Even if all drunks were lonely, as you claim, that doesn't mean that America doesn't have a drinking problem. My final argument: According to the National Council On Alcohol and Drug Dependence, alcohol is the most commonly used addictive substance in the U.S. 17.6 million people, or one in every 12 adults, suffer from alcohol abuse or dependence along with several million more who engage in risky drinking patterns that could lead to alcohol problems. More than half of all adults have a family history of alcoholism or problem drinking, and more than seven million children live in a household where at least one parent is dependent or has abused alcohol. ( https://ncadd.org... ) If America didn't have a drinking problem then one in every 12 adults would not suffer from alcohol abuse or dependence. As with all my arguments, the statistics really speak for themselves. America has a drinking problem. I wonder if Jesus regrets turning water into wine...what do you think, Pro?
America does not have a drinking problem

Con your statistics are misleading. The leading cause of death is- DEATH It is 100% fatal. Everyone dies. No one died in an car accident before the 1800's. But there was just as much drinking then as now. Liver disease is not the leading cause of death. And for men anyway, if nothing else gets you prostrate cancer will. People drink for a reason. The reason is simple. People are hurting inside. So they turn to drink. All drunks are lonely. If for no other reason- No one can stand to be around them. To be around a drunk you have to be drunk. That is loneliness times two.
America does not have a drinking problem

Rebuttal to Pro's rebuttal: Technology is not directly at fault, the driver is. You can't hold the gun responsible for murder just like you can't hold technology responsible for drunk driving. Vehicle are there to be driven, yes, but if someone decides to misuse a vehicle then that is their choice and responsibility. Rebuttal to Pro's argument: How is drunkenness a symptom of anything, let alone loneliness? can you back this up factually? "The American Indians suffered from loneliness. When they were introduced to alcohol they found a way of filling the empty space in their lives. For centuries they were denied the Holy Spirit. They could not resist the opportunity that alcohol afforded them." Well then, looks like the American Indians had drinking problems too as they resorted to alcohol to fill the empty space due to being denied the 'Holy Spirit'. My second argument: America's drinking problem has caused many people to fall ill and in some cases even die. Excessive alcohol is extremely detrimental to the human body. The mouth, esophagus, heart, pancreas and brain are effected negatively by alcohol abuse ( http://www.cdc.gov... ) The liver is also known for it's intolerance of alcohol ( http://www.loveyourliver.com.au... ). In fact, alcohol is a leading cause in Liver Cirrhosis. In 2000, Liver Cirrhosis was the 12th leading cause of death in the USA ( http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov... ). Liver Cirrhosis kills 10.8 people per 100,000 in the US ( http://www.cdc.gov... ). Liver Cirrhosis is just one of the many diseases excessive alcohol can cause/influence. Anemia, High Blood Pressure and many more come as a result of heavy alcohol consumption ( http://www.webmd.com... ). If America didn't have a drinking problem then 10.8 people per 100,000 wouldn't die from Liver Cirrhosis, a disease heavily influenced by excessive alcohol consumption. In fact, if America didn't have a drinking problem then excessive alcohol consumption would never even occur.
America does not have a drinking problem

Driving drunk: The gasoline powered car was invented in the year 1885/1886 by Karl Friedrich Benz in Germany. Con's statistic concerning drunk driving is not a problem with drinking. Instead it is a technology problem. Transportation in general: Noah was not drunk when he was driving the Ark yet the entire human race was destroyed, excepting for Noah and his immediate family. Noah became a drunkard after the catastrophe. Drunkenness was a symptom not a reason. Next Pro argument: Drunkenness is a symptom. It is a symptom of loneliness. People are empty, they are alone, they are deprived of the Holy Spirit. In the old days alcohol was called 'spirits'. Alcohol is a way of filling the empty space called loneliness caused by spiritual deprivation due to the prohibition of the filling of the Holy Spirit. The American Indians suffered from loneliness. When they were introduced to alcohol they found a way of filling the empty space in their lives. For centuries they were denied the Holy Spirit. They could not resist the opportunity that alcohol afforded them.
America does not have a drinking problem

Rebuttal to Pro's rebuttal: I can not deny that during the Prohibition Era the demand for alcohol in the US was greater than the supply of it and that organized crime was used by many as a means of obtaining alcohol. Your rebuttal doesn't alter or invalidate the statistic or point I provided. Instead, purely points out that during the Prohibition Era there was a greater demand for alcohol than could be supplied. Rebuttal to Pro's Argument: "All humans have an empty space inside them that yearns to be filled" That sounds more like a belief or theory, rather than a fact. Have you anything to back this up? "If the Holy Spirit is withheld from the human heart then the human has no alternative but to fill the emptiness with something else" If there is a Holy Spirit and it is being withheld from the human heart and the human has no alternative but to fill the emptiness with something else then that could explain the drinking problem present in the US, don't you think? Many are 'filling the emptiness' with ethanol. My First Argument: As we all know, driving whilst drunk is dangerous and illegal for obvious reasons. Alcohol influences poor judgment, relaxation and altered mood which results in a decline in visual functions and ability to perform two tasks at the same time, hence why driving whilst drunk is extremely dangerous. ( https://ncadd.org... ) According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 31% of all traffic deaths in the US in 2012 were as a result of drunk driving. ( http://responsibility.org... ) In addition to that, on average, Alcohol-related crashes cost American taxpayers around $100 billion per year. ( https://ncadd.org... ) If America didn't have a drinking problem then many Americans wouldn't be driving whilst drunk, Alcohol-related traffic deaths would never happen and billions of dollars worth of tax would not be spent on Alcohol-related crashes.
America does not have a drinking problem

To rebut Con and the Con statistics- American Economy is based on supply and demand. For alcohol the equation reads- Demand for alcohol in the U.S. = Supply of alcohol in the U.S. This equation is in perfect balance today. But it has not always been the case. Take the Prohibition Era for example. During Prohibition the equation read like the following- Demand for alcohol in the U.S. > Supply of alcohol in the U.S. But the equation does not do justice to the problem. The Demand far outpaced the supply. So much so that Organized Crime in America was established and even today Organized Crime in America flourishes. During Prohibition America had a real drinking problem. Christian Argument number 1: All humans have an empty space inside them that yearns to be filled. This emptiness can be filled with many different things. If the Holy Spirit is withheld from the human heart then the human has no alternative but to fill the emptiness with something else. More than this- If the Holy Spirit is withheld then the human is free to fill the emptiness with anything they wish.
America does not have a drinking problem

I accept the challenge and will be arguing that America does have a drinking problem. I will be using statistics to back up my argument and will reference website links to validate. I should also mention that I am not arguing that every American has an issue with alcohol. Instead, that there does appear to be alcohol issues present in America right now. Pro stated that their source of choice is the bible. Pro also stated: "The Bible has so much to say about alcohol that it could be described as excessive. Jesus turned water into wine. He is our example and no one else. " I cannot argue that the bible does not discuss alcohol a fair bit. However, that doesn't change the fact that many Americans have drinking problems and that alcohol issues are present in the US. Approximately 17 million adults had an AUD in 2012. This includes 11.2 million men and 5.7 million women (. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov...). Even if Jesus did turn water into wine, statistics like the one previously mentioned are still valid and it is still apparent that America has a drinking problem. The bible doesn't change that. I will further argue my point, as Con, in my next argument.
America does not have a drinking problem

The Pro position, (mine) is that the citizens of the United States do not have a problem with alcohol. As always my main source is the Bible. But Con is welcome to use any source and good luck Con. "Be not drunk with wine where in is excess. But be ye filled with the Spirit." Saul of Tarsus The Bible has so much to say about alcohol that it could be described as excessive. Jesus turned water into wine. He is our example and no one else.