BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: In the US, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult criminals.

My opponent is sticking to his claim that incapacitation and deterrence will be beneficial to society. He says, "The juvenile system will have a smaller sentence, we cannot count on maybe two years of rehabilitation to so call 'fix' kids who killed someone, and it will not work" and that "There is NOTHING about rehabilitating a violent juvenile that will provide societal welfare." This is a silly statement because when done effectively, this can be very beneficial. I am saying that this juvenile justice does work. As I have stated time and again that by fully rehabilitating these juveniles, as the juvenile system does, they can be returned into society and make a difference for the better. My opponent is taking the stance that we to incapacitate and deter them, which is contradictory. Deterrence is scaring them out of doing something but this does not matter if we are focused on incapacitating them. Also, because their brains are not fully developed, they do not forfeit their rights to society. When my opponent attempted to address my response to his point about morality, he failed to address the fact that their impulse control is not developed and that this causes them to not be able to adequately make these decisions. He only made the point that kids know morality, so therefore, they are fully responsible for their actions. When he attacks my point about recidivism, he presents a new recidivism rate than he did earlier in the debate. His numbers went from 51% to 75% which in itself shows that we cannot be certain about these numbers. Also, recidivism cannot be definitively defined because my quote was from the US Department of Justice which means that there was no way that these sources could have accurately determined this. Also, my opponent claims that these juveniles are no longer a part of society and that therefore, we should allow them to be abused. As I have stated, our goal should be to rehabilitate these juveniles and this cannot be achieved through placing them in this dangerous situation. I have attacked his VC concerning incapacitation because my focus on rehabilitation shows that incapaciting them is not positive and that we need to rehabilitate them. My opponent primarily states that my case is invalid because juveniles know morals, but if they do not have impulse control, then this does not matter. Voting Points: 1) In order to maximize the welfare of society, we need to rehabilitate these juveniles, so that they can be useful in the future. Effective rehabilitation can do this for even violent juveniles. 2) My opponent fails to address the fact that juveniles do not have impulse control, which makes their knowledge of morals inapplicable. 3) He has no basis to say that there is higher recidivism because there is no possible way to measure this. 4) His value and value criterion are contradictory. 5) He is focused on scaring the juvenile and incapacitating, which is not the solution for a better society
Resolved: In the US, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult criminals.

road map: I am going to rebuild my case than talk about the voting points of this debate. my opponent states my value criterion contradicts itself. this comment makes no since he says "Deterrence is scaring them out of doing something but this does not matter if we are focused on incapacitating them. " I am saying that the harsher punishment that the adult system has will make the juvenile never want to commit the crime because they will no longer have a two year sentence for murder but a lifetime sentence. incapacitation is keeping the juveniles who did commit the crime away from society so they can never commit the crime again. deterrence is not only for the people who have gone two jail, but it is for everyone. as for recidivism rates, I brought up two different studies using two different states. I was only using recidivism two show how rehabilitation programs in the juvenile system will not be 100% effective. the quote on how recidivism on a national level cannot be effective cannot disprove a single recidivism example on a single state. my opponent makes scaring the juveniles sound bad, but scaring the juveniles out of crime is just what we need. voting points 1 value clash. first of all my opponent provides no clear link to rehabilitation and societal welfare, he states that rehabilitation will achieve societal welfare but he provides no reason why. the one thing my opponent did say was that a rehabilitated criminal will benefit society and we need them, as I stated, society is better off without these violent criminals, we do not allow former prisoners to vote supports that we would be better without them in society. his value of rehabilitation only focuses on juveniles who committed a violent crime, therefore it will only be benefiting those juveniles rather than all of society. my value safety is best for America as a whole because the juveniles will be deterred so the crime will stop before it happens and incapacitation keeps the criminals off the streets for a longer time. my value is better for the greater amount of people and the more innocent people, therefore it is superior. 2. culpability. the juveniles have morals making them culpable of the crime they committed. my opponents evidence about how juveniles lack the ability to control impulses was already previously disproved with the fact that there is two little known about the brain to make that conclusion. 3. effectiveness of the adult court system. as I proved in my case by the support of several scholars, adult court can better deal with the violent juveniles than the juvenile system can.
The U.S. Should Maintain its Alliance with Israel

Resolved: The U.S. should maintain its alliance with IsraelDefinitionsU.S. - United States of America.Should - ought to.Maintain - continue existence.Alliance - a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations to cooperate for specific purposes.Israel - the Middle Eastern country on the Mediterranean Sea.Rules1. BOP is shared.2. Con has the option to begin in the next round or allow me to begin first in Round 2 if he wishes. 3. No trolling/semantics/kritiks.4. Maintain a civil atmosphere. 5. My opponent agrees to all definitions. Let's do it ;)
Presupposing Islam is true, an eternal hell is justified.

= = = = = Introduction = = = = =This debate will be about the justification for the conception of hell fire in Islam. I will argue that Hell fire conceived of in Islam, a conscious eternal torment is morally justified. My opponent may build a case of his own, but it is sufficient for him to only refute my case. = = = = = Debate Guidelines = = = = = R1. Acceptance R2. Opening Arguments/Rebuttals R3. Rebuttals/Arguments R4. Closing Statements/Rebuttals No side can present new arguments in the last round only rebuttals and closing statements. Also no semantics, the resolution is straightforward.= = = = = Defintions = = = = =I will define Allah using Surah Al Ikhlas which discusses the most crucial attributes of Allah, and Surah Al Araf which shows the mercy of Allah. Basically, all-powerful, complete/perfect, one (monotheism), and merciful. [Surah Al Ikhlas Chapter 112 Verses 1-4] “Say: He is Allah, the One and Only. Allah, the Eternal, Absolute. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.”[Surah Al Araf Chapter 7 Verse 156] ...My mercy extendeth to all things.... -- Framework for the Debate --This framework addreses the main presuppositions which will form the guidelines for contention.→ Islam is TrueWhile this may seem like a huge presupposution it is only relevant to four other theological presuppositions in this debate which are:→ Hell fire is an eternal conscious torment→ Allah both knows what will happen whilst people still having Free Will (Molinism)→ Human Beings have a Soul that exists eternally and is connected to the physical body (Dualism) → only intentional sin is weighed, unintentional sin is not. For example, the unlearned would not be punished because it is unintentional whereas people who know about the religion and go against guidelines would be punished. Given these presuppositions, my opponent will argue for the negation of the resolution. In fact, he need not build a case of his own but only rebut my points. I will have the burden of proof. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If there is anything Con would to fix or point out about the framework or the rules etc, please address before accepting. The acceptance of this debate implies my opponent agrees to follow and comply with everything stated.
Wii U is overlooked, and is a good console.

I will now attempt to rebut his arguments. To begin due to the theory of economics, price of an object is directly corralled to the quality of an object. Because the price of a Wii U is notably less then an Xbox 1 or PS4 we must the draw the connection that the wii u is of a noticeably less quality. The Wii U's live is free because there are noticeably less uses for live on the Wii U. Considering that the majority of video game players are on Xbox or Play Station there is not a large number of gamer on Wii to play against. Ratings do not correlate to games that are amazing. Games like assassins creed, gta or watchdogs would have over 10/10 rating if I were able to rate. Just because the ratings are different does not mean the quality of the games are different, although there is a correlation. Xbox and play station allow games to be backwards compatable also. Due to the HTML 500 error, I have multiple imminent debates so I cannot spend much time on this round, but I look forward to your next argument.
Wii U is overlooked, and is a good console.

Thank you for accepting, I'm going to be glad to listening to your side of the argument.My overall impression, and understanding of the Wii U is that the Wii U, is a very unique console, different then the other consoles and is, cheap, and fun to play!1. The price of a Wii U at Game Stop can be low as $279.99 not including taxes, and would be brand new. Compared to the PS4 it's 349.99$ at its lowest. Xbox One $314.99. Wii U is certainly cheaper just for a console. The price of live is extremely different. The Wii U's live is free, having another account, with live will cost $1. Xbox live cost $60 a year, PS4 has $49.99 for a year. 2. The games are also cheaper on the Wii U, and are still fun. Most games on the Wii U are indeed cheap. While most games that are on different verity of platforms tend to be better on the Wii U.Example: Call of Duty Ghost, Wii U, star's rating are, 7.4/10 - gamestop.com, 3.5/5 - Metacritic, and 8.8/10 - IGN.com Call of Duty Ghost on PS4, 4/5 - Netacritic, IGN.com - 8.8/10, and GameStop 5.5/10. The Wii U version of Ghost is better than the PS4 version. Their are even many more, and some may say these games are terrible. Some are cheap, are indeed amazing high rated games.Bayonetta 2 has high ratings, and is $34, new, at gamestop.Wii U also has 681 counted games on the Wii U. 3. The Wii U, GamePad is very unique. It has a touch screen, voice recording, camera, and many more. You don't even need to have a Television set to use the Wii U. This also allows other family members, or friends to use the T.V. While you can be playing, "Black Ops II"4. The backwards compatibility of the Wii U also gives it an unique look. You can keep old controllers, motion sensor, games, and many more, for the Wii U.5. Cross buy games. Wii U has a cross buy games, which meaning you can play on your handheld device "3DS," and buy, one game, and have it on two different devices. "Wii U, and 3DS"6. Easy to navigate. The Wii U, is easier to navigate. With a click of a button, compared to moving, and scrolling throughout the menu.I'm sorry I couldn't add more detail, fixing my spelling/grammer. I couldn't add a lot more pictures, or more facts, but due to the amount of school work, it delayed my debate.- Hope you enjoy
Wii U is overlooked, and is a good console.

Wii U is overlooked, and is a good console. Rules: 1. No trolling 2. No spamming comments 3. First round is acceptance 4. Whoever accepts cannot copy and paste your argument. (You are allowed to use websites for backup, and use pictures/stats for help.) 5. Whoever accepts cannot add your point of argument in the comments, but you can still add something off topic. 6. Vote properly, don't go off your opinion, go for your whoever shows more detail. 7. Respect for everyone. _______________________________ ANY RULE BROKEN IS AN AUTOMATIC LOSS! _______________________________ Things that are allowed: Missing a round (forfeit) and still win (you just have to press your argument into two or one round.) Use a console comparison, but this is NOT PS4 Versus Wii U, type of thing. Rebuttal, and constructive can be used anytime. IF including your rebuttal, and constructive in one round, HAS TO BE SEPARATED! Using all capital letters ONLY for highlighting a certain part! ___________________________ Remember to rules, have fun, AND ENJOY!
Modern Pixar is better than Disney Classics

Disney classics are what established the Disney animation empire we have now. They brought fairy tales and fun stories to life and their legacy carries on to this day; they inspired and continue to inspire countless generations of people from all around the world. On top of that, the Disney classics teach children invaluable lessons. Cinderella teaches kids be kind, optimistic, responsible, and patient, and though life is not always easy, having these qualities will lead to happiness. Sleeping Beauty teaches kids the power of 'true love', and if you look deeper into it, that they should not offend others (as the king did to Maleficent by not inviting her). The Little Mermaid teaches kids that you must decide how to live your life for yourself, and that doing so will present obstacles (like signing a contract with Ursula) and, if you stay on the right path, you will reach your goal. Robin Hood (yes, that's a Disney classic) inspires children who are born in the working class to question the authority and injustices committed by the ruling class. Pixar is an amazing studio, I'll admit, and they have produced some pretty good films, however, they are nothing compared to Disney classics. SOURCES: http://www.slideshare.net... https://www.reference.com... http://disney.wikia.com... https://answers.yahoo.com...
Modern Pixar is better than Disney Classics

Pixar always comes put with fresh,vivid and fun movies. Unlike disney classics they don't have a base to start off and have to start from scratch,still managing to make legendary films. Pixar manages to make unrealistic things like a clown fish and a toy of a cowboy feel like real humans and we as humans get emotionally connected to those characters. They have meanings on and beneath the surface of the film and teach children the real life issues that are currently taking place. Zootopia teaches kids about racism and how it affects people while still making us laugh at hilarious jokes. Pixar's movies have paved the road for other studios to follow by pretty much creating a new style of animation when they released Toy Story. Disney Classics had a pretty bland and simple animation style, Disney Classics don't have that good of a meaning behind their story, like what is Cinderella supposed to teach kids exactly. Pixar also domimates the Box Office and critics praise almost all their movies except Cars 2. Pixar also provided us with amazing songs like Let It Go and You got a friend in me. No doubt Pixar is the greatest animation studio out there and it's just beginning.
Late term abortion is worse than early abortion.

In places like africa, latin america, really anywhere without money, foster programs are virtually a death sentence themselves and many pregnant mothers are completely on their own. Sometimes situations dont present themselves as such until late in the pregnancy. If you think there is even a single situation where abortion is acceptable (because of heatlh, financial situation, ect.) than theres no reason doing it late is any different from doing it early. And in times where the mother could have the child and safley give it to adoption, why is it any worse in the 3rd trimester than in the 1st 6 months? those women in the first 6 months will eventually be in their 3rd, so why is it worse or better? What were really arguing about her is weighing why early and late term abortions are different, and in reality, how ever you tihnk of aboritons, they really arent different at all. And to the whole death thing, you claim that endangering what would be a life is wrong. Does that mean masterbation is the murder of 1,000s of babies? There is no clear and simple answer as to when a baby's life starts and neither of us are qualified to make that assumption (nor is any other non-divine being on this planet). Saying that its murder is just generalizing the action.
Late term abortion is worse than early abortion.

"Im not sure what world you live in where all pregnant couples are married and thus entitled to child support. I also dont know why you would assume that all women have families they can turn to for help (especially in the places i mentioned wouldnt have suitable foster systems). There are millions of babies born every year in the world and not all of them are born in houses w. married parents (or two parents at all) and families. Sure, if you have the means to protect a born child, than you should have them and do it. Im talking about people who would literally have their lives (and the life of the child) runied by not having an abortion." I never said all pregnant couples are married, I saids if they were they could easily claim child support. Yes not all women have friends and family they can turn to, but there is bound to be programs to help her. Even if abortion is the only option why third trimester, why not first trimester? "As far as health, i am not advocating putting an unborn fetus to death because it would be born handicapped, but physical and mental abnormalities do not only effect the child, the effect the mother as well. If you're pregnant and your child develops cancer in the womb, the longer its in there, theres more of a cahnce the cancer spreads to you via blood stream." I never said if her life was in danger to not kill it, because tha would eventually kill them both. "But that brings me to another problem, you say that abortion is murder, but why are you setting perameters for when life begins? I hear people saying that once there is a heart beat, or a brain wave, the life is official, but says who? The being isn't concious and cant exist on its own. A dead person can have a heart beat and brain activity for hours, sometimes days after his death, does that mean hes still alive?" If there is a chance that the being in question is alive, more harm would be done by killing it than to let it live. If there is a heart beat chances are it is alive. The dead man, he was alive at some point which is why his heart was ever able to beat. I wil no change my avatar, to my sister sucking her thumb for the purpose of this debate.
Late term abortion is worse than early abortion.

Im not sure what world you live in where all pregnant couples are married and thus entitled to child support. I also dont know why you would assume that all women have families they can turn to for help (especially in the places i mentioned wouldnt have suitable foster systems). There are millions of babies born every year in the world and not all of them are born in houses w. married parents (or two parents at all) and families. Sure, if you have the means to protect a born child, than you should have them and do it. Im talking about people who would literally have their lives (and the life of the child) runied by not having an abortion. As far as health, i am not advocating putting an unborn fetus to death because it would be born handicapped, but physical and mental abnormalities do not only effect the child, the effect the mother as well. If you're pregnant and your child develops cancer in the womb, the longer its in there, theres more of a cahnce the cancer spreads to you via blood stream. But that brings me to another problem, you say that abortion is murder, but why are you setting perameters for when life begins? I hear people saying that once there is a heart beat, or a brain wave, the life is official, but says who? The being isn't concious and cant exist on its own. A dead person can have a heart beat and brain activity for hours, sometimes days after his death, does that mean hes still alive?
Late term abortion is worse than early abortion.

". .. the reason abortion is, and always should be legal is a matter of the personal right too make a choice. .. " Since everone can agree that the child could be born and survive, at any time in the third trimester, I veiw it especially as murder. I don't agree with abortion at all, but late term abortion is worse, because of the fact that the baby could have been out at the time of the abortion. "1) Economics: One of the reasons a mother has an abortion is because the father walks out on her, or she simply cant afford to have a baby at the time. I know, you seem to think adoption is an easy option, and in some circumstances, it may be, but certain places both in the US and around the world dont have adequate adoption facilities/programs, so they could be made similarly to an unheathy babies. Bringing me to. .. " If the father walks out on her she can get child support, if they were married, can she not? Even if the answer of child support is there is no way she could ever get it, what about in family adoption? Like if that was the case with my mother, she could have given me to her sister, or her mother, or even her father. Chances are the woman has some kind of family. That can go financially too. Chances are the mother knows somebody that would love to have a baby, or would like to help. 2) Health of the child: According to the 2007 Surgeon General's Medical Report, 43% of pre-natal medical abnormalities or conditions are developed during or after the second trimester. If we agree the early term abortions are reasonable for this reason (health), than late terms are just as reasonable. We have not agreed that physical and mental abnormalties=should be put to death. Thus we cannot agree on the abortion being reasonale.
Late term abortion is worse than early abortion.

I can't say I share you view though. I've never been a big fan of abortion. I've always seen the personal issue similarly to your description, an easy way out in most circumstances. But the reason abortion is, and always should be legal is a matter of the personal right too make a choice. I will give you two reasons why a late term abortion is just as viable as one in the first 2 trimesters. First of all, I make my argument assuming we are both on the same ground about early abortions. 1) Economics: One of the reasons a mother has an abortion is because the father walks out on her, or she simply cant afford to have a baby at the time. I know, you seem to think adoption is an easy option, and in some circumstances, it may be, but certain places both in the US and around the world dont have adequate adoption facilities/programs, so they could be made similarly to an unheathy babies. Bringing me to. .. 2) Health of the child: According to the 2007 Surgeon General's Medical Report, 43% of pre-natal medical abnormalities or conditions are developed during or after the second trimester. If we agree the early term abortions are reasonable for this reason (health), than late terms are just as reasonable.