BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
15 is a better age of sexual consent than 18

Guidelines for the Policy This shall be concerning safe sex only, the issue of teenage pregnancy shall be irrelevant as the law shall state that impregnating a girl shouldn't happen before 18 The issue of maturity is nonsense, some 15 year olds are far more mentally mature than some 18 years olds and at 15 almost all boys have hit puberty[1][2] and thus are perfectly capable to have sex without doing what they shouldn't naturally do at their age The Proposed PolicyAll males and female that have had their fifteenth birthday shall be able to legally have sex with all adults. However, impregnation of a girl who has not yet finished her higher education (18 in USA) should not feel the need to get pregnant and if she is impregnated by someone over 18, this is a huge social issue and shall be dealt with in the following manner: If the male is 18 or over and the female is under 18 he must be fully charge for any additional costs to the female's family regarding costs for the baby and/or abortion (depending on The Female's family's decision) If the male is 15-17, abortion will be mandatory If the male is under 15, since the age of consent is now 15 and the female was of consent she has commited statutory rape in the pedophilic sense, since no longer is 'under 18' the boundary, she shall be charged with rape unless the boy did it against her will If the boy, under 15, turns out to have overpowered the girl, standard rape procedure shall take place If the boy, under 15, turns out to have supposedly 'consensual' sex with the girl, 15-18, abortion will be mandatory and the girl will be charged with pedophilic rape, as is standard with the 18 year old age of consent at present Incest, rape and blackmailed sex shall be dealt with as laws apply, apart from that the age of consent is now 15, any part of the laws and policies stating '18' shall be replaced with '15'. Any 15+ year old male that engages with sex with a female under 15 and is caught can, and will, be prosecuted as an adult for pedophilic rape, since sexually he will now be considered an adult.That is all for the policy.Definition:Age of sexual consent: the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts.[3] Sexual: relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.[4] Sources[1] http://www.teengrowth.com... [2] http://puberty101.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
15 is a better age of sexual consent than 18

I was hoping to create a debate without choosing a position myself, thus allowing my opponent to choose whichever side they'd like and leaving me to argue the opposite position. But since I apparently can't do that I'm hoping instead to debate one side, and upon conclusion rehash the debate (presumably with a different opponent) with my position flipped around. For this first debate I've chosen to take the position I agree with least - that age of consent should be 18 rather than 15. I consider both positions to be pretty equally sub-optimal, but I've chosen them to amplify the advantages and disadvantages of each. Round 1 - Acceptance, definitions Rounds 2, 3 - Introduce and counter arguments Round 4 - No new arguments, conclusions PRO will argue that the age of consent should be 15 CON will argue that the age of consent should be 18 For this debate I have chosen CON. No semantics. This debate encompasses whether - as a matter of law, morals, practicality, or any other reasonable and relevant reason - it makes more sense for the age of sexual consent to be 15, or 18 in the USA. If you wish to clarify or add any definitions please do so in round 1. PLEASE - Only accept if you plan to actually follow through with all 4 rounds, I've not actually been able to engage in a real debate yet because of flaky opponents.
15 is a better age of sexual consent than 18

I think I can see why we disagree.You seem to think that an age of consent must include EVERY SINGLE THING that goes with what is being consented to. However, no law does this. The age of consent for alcohol, in most non-Muslim countries, is 18 (Muslim states tend to prefer the age of 21). Nonetheless it is true to say that anyone, especially those 18+, whom die of liver cancer, whom abuse their children and wife due to alcohol abuse and whom are unable to stop require legal intervention. This is the key flaw in the entire con's debate.You basically have one contention only: That if we allow 15 year olds to engage in safe sex, with regulated frequency for a healthy life, we are therefore legalising pregnancy. However, in my policy I laid out a clear legal system by which this issue is avoided or dealt with appropriately. I took the very well-implemented and founded laws of the current American (a significantly regarded somewhat democratic) society and merely replaced any dealings with age of 18 with '15'. However, due to an overlap in age, for many educational and thus practical reason, I stated that there shall be an extra policy as follows; If the male is 15-17, abortion will be mandatory. The reasoning behind this is that we can't have underage pregnancy causing overpopulation. Since you didn't state if this age would be relevant to a less economically developed country, I was unsure of how much regulation would be required in terms of population overgrowth. Thus, this policy was made to be applicable to most states/countries in the world today.In conclusion, the only rebuttal of my opponent the entire debate is irrelevant, safe sex is very necessary to prevent both STD spreading and underage pregnancy (there was not one piece of justified evidence in order to validate the point that the age of legal pregnancy must be equal to the age of sex, it is like stating that countries where the legal age of consent is under 18, for example it is 16 in the U.K., yet 18 remains the age for pornography are flawed laws, you would be arguing the laws of well-established democracies and this, you did not do). My points remain, as I shall now re-iterate, that at 15 the majority of humans are fully physically and mentally ready for a sexual relationship, however I accept that educationally they are not at the stage where having a child should be allowed to mess up their future prospects so severely as to reduce their efficiency at high school, thus safe sex should indeed be mandatory, I assumed this was self explanatory from my proposed policy but nonetheless I hope to have explained why this should be the case. I have also stated how the enjoyment of sex is a great form of pleasure, in moderation, and the only real way to teach the kids who are bound to be having strong urges to do it regardless of legality, is to introduce them into the activity itself in a 'safe zone' in which contraception is a MUST! (They can enjoy the riskier sides of sex, if they so wish, when they are legally considered fully grown adults, which in most countries is at 18).Vote pro.Have a nice day. And a nicer tomorrow.
15 is a better age of sexual consent than 18

My debate essentially can be broken down into two questions to be answered by con:If someone is physically mature to have sex and enjoy it safely, without getting pregnant or retaining STD's, why should we ban them from this?If, at age 15, people can enjoy a sexual relationship, or just sex itself, but would be devastated to be pregnant and if contraception and sex education are pillars of our modern society why should we use the fact that they COULD get pregnant as reason to not allow it safely?
15 is a better age of sexual consent than 18

I am not impressed with the response. The point #2 is contradictive of my policy. My policy made it so that pregnancy till high school is over shouldn't be legal. So... It's not a real point to raise.I shall now rebut my opponent and reinforce my proposed policy plan.That age of majority concept is firstly irrelevant and secondly isn't a well established fact since maturity is, somewhat, subjective as much as it is objective so cannot be used as the full backing for an entire contradiction to the age of consent being 15. The fact of human life is that at 13, most boys begin puberty[1] and at 10, most girls[1]. Thus, by 15 the body is pretty much ready to have sex especially for females but socially they would be unready to be pregnant for school purposes so that's just an illogical argument for con.The fact I think I simply want to state (which counters almost all points raised by con) is that it is possible to have an age of consent for sex that is different to the age when one becomes an 'adult'. the reason is that sex is merely a pleasurable experience that can be very safe and enjoyable for both parties (or more parties, but let's not get sidetracked). An adult is, I would say, a human that has reached a stage f maturity whereby they are fully capable of being independent and responsible in society. However, despite a 15 year old having not quite reached this stage of maturity, they are entering the world of 'higher education' where, in most countries, external examinations occur for the individual. They already begin building the reputation, via school reports and commendations, for their future success in university and the working world. They clearly have a reasonable level to decide and use their bodies in a sensible manner (hence most universities analysing students' success form this age onwards). However, they are not fully finished on their journey into adulthood but have reached what I would call an 'intermediate stage of maturity' whereby they are mature enough to consent to sex but not mature enough to independently make decisions in all sectors of life.Yes, this is safe sex, I don't understand how you can think a 15 year old should have unsafe sex... I didn't quite understand that argument you put at the end.Sources:[1] http://kidshealth.org...
The world is not the center of the universe.

You never rebutted my PROOF. I am not happy with you. You are not always right and I hope everyone recognizes it. Even IF the world was the center of the universe, which by the way is rediculous, and EVEN IF you where right all the time. That would mean that you where the center of the universe, and because I highly doubt that you are in the exact center of the earth, you wouyld be the center, not the earth. That is silly to say because obviously I am right. Also, I am not saying that I am right all the time, like my stubborn opponent, but in this case, no one could argue against me and win. Including 'padfoot36'.
The world is not the center of the universe.

That was incredibly rude, but I will ignore your petty complaints and win this debate. You are wrong. Everyone in the world (narrowing it down to above the age of 10) knows I should win. You have NO proof, while I shall show some here: The Western world used to believe that the Earth was the centre of the universe. It was an idea that the ancient Greeks first proposed - that the other planets, the Sun and the Moon all circle the Earth, while the distant fixed stars all look on inwards to us as the centre of creation. This idea suited the Christian outlook of the times, for it physically placed the human race where God had placed them psychologically - as the crowning glory of His creation. Copernicus was one of the first scientists to challenge this idea. It is now accepted that all experimental evidence and all our best theories point to the fact that the Earth is, astronomically speaking, an ordinary member of a solar system. The Sun is actually what sits at the centre of this system and is the binding force that keeps it together. Experimental evidence also points to the fact that this solar system is not the centre of our galaxy. In fact, we can see the rest of our galaxy in the sky - the Milky Way - and even with the naked eye it is possible to realise that we are not at its centre. We do not have any similar evidence to suggest that we are not the centre of the universe. We do not have any evidence to suggest that we are. Such evidence is impossible at present because we cannot even be sure that the universe has a centre. (If it is infinite, a unique central point has no meaning for every point is in some sense the centre.) However, astrophysicists know that we once incorrectly assumed ourselves to be the centre of the solar system and are wary of making the same mistake twice. In the modern world, we attempt to remove any unnecessary assumptions from our theories and to work as unobjectively as possible. From this starting point, we assume that there is nothing extraordinary about our galaxy and therefore that it has about as much chance as being at the centre, if such a thing does exist, as anyone else - a probability of virtually zero. It is with this, unbiased statistical reasoning that modern-day astronomers believe that we are not the centre of the universe. Also, I could have more easily won by saying that the universe is infinate, so there can be no center. I should like to think that Everyone shall vote for what is right, and for the person with the most manners.
The world is not the center of the universe.

Hello, padfoot36. I would like to say that I do not apreciate you copying my name. I had it first. You are obviously jelous because You also picked a hamster as your icon. Am I inspiring? Now, the earth is proven, and everybody knows it, to not be the center of the universe like you claim. This theory was believed like 400 years ago or something, but the earth revolves around the sun. Even the sun is not the center of the universe. I challenge you to say I am wrong!!!
We should stop bailing the Greek economy

Greece was attacked by the Italians in October 1940. However, Greece did not fall under axis control until June 1941. Hence, 7 Months of strong resistance. On the other hand, the Dutch fell within 7 days. Greece caused Hitler to delay his plans to invade the Soviet Union, hence ensuring that the war in the east would drag on into the winter which meant the russians had a greater chance at resisting the Germans. This allowed the Nazis to be defeated. Hence, Greece leans on noone you falseling.
We should stop bailing the Greek economy

I don't see how that as anything to do with it, just by telling me I'm wrong does not make your argument right. The Greeks have been leaning on the rest of the world for far too long and the Greeks should bail out there own country, the rest of the world has tried to bail them out but enough is enough and it is time we left the Greeks to drown in their own debt and should stop running to the rest of the world.
Homework should be banned

Everybody has different learning styles. I for one, learn more when I am at home in a quiet room than I do when I am at school, in my case college, where we also have homework. Actually, I just graduated and am waiting to move on to a University, but that is besides the point. Would you have a problem if your homework every night was to read? What students are given as homework is the problem, not homework itself. Your topic was homework should be banned, I don't think it should. "Homework" may have little to do with the reasons behind why students here in America do not get straight A's, but what is happening at home has lot to do with it. Come up with an intelligent idea for how homework should be handled, bring it up to your teacher in a respectful manner, and see what happens. Explain to him/her that you don't believe the homework they require you to do is beneficial to your education. The taxes your parents pay every year is what funds public school systems. You are never too young to stand up for what you believe in. Put some real thought into it before you present your idea.
Homework should be banned

The kids here in America are spoiled. Students in other countries laugh at how easy Americans have it in school. I only took this debate to try and teach you how important your education is.' My opponent does not understand my argument. I am not spoiled it is the truth. Children learn more when studying and when they study they can get higher grades on their test. If homework is important and it teaches you things why doesn't any one in American schools get strait A's. It is important to keep young minds active so that their brain is constantly making new connections, essentially building a stronger brain for once you are older' Reading books helps your mind and help develop more vocabulary homework is just something that you already learned in school. I rather read my book to improve my grade. Also other constructive things than homework can help your brain active
Homework should be banned

The kids here in America are spoiled. Students in other countries laugh at how easy Americans have it in school. I only took this debate to try and teach you how important your education is. Our whole education system needs to be restructured. Once it is finally restructured, there will still be homework. It is important to keep young minds active so that their brain is constantly making new connections, essentially building a stronger brain for once you are older. Homework doesn't need to end, it just needs to be changed. Our teaching methods are outdated. Trust me, you have it easy compared to students in some other countries. Soak in as much as you can now while your brain is still somewhat spongy. You'll have a much different viewpoint in a few years.
Homework should be banned

I've read some of the comments, and I must say that the people against it have no idea about what homework is actually doing to students. They confuse homework with studying which are different things. I have seen many teachers who slam the project paper in front of you and impatiently wait expect you to do it without teaching you anything. Then you do the homework in agony without learning anything. You just do it because you have to. Again, if you say "But it helps students remember what they have seen in class" NO, just no... Students can study and learn the topics for the up-coming exam. Hw is just an excuse for teachers to lazy-out on teaching something. Humans are not built for this kind of things, 8 hours at school is already too much to ask. I think teachers should actually teach rather than puking homework on students. By looking at my self, I can say that students learn more that way. So instead of giving projects every week and expecting it for the next week they should ban the amount of homework given.For the people who are against the removal of homework. You're probably all adults who have already finished school and are thinking " We did it too back in the time, so should students today" NO, that is wrong! You might as well say "I starved when I was younger so should my child". Also, just because some sources say that it helps students learn and what not, again...... NO. They are not true. Take it from the people inside this scenario and situation and make your judgments based on that.
Feminism is and has achieved equality. 3rd wave feminism is oppressive.

I have been looking over this argument in depth recently/ a long time. I honestly cannot for the life of me understand how there are men and woman out there who still believe in the necessity of Modern Feminism? Actually it is starting to come to my attention that a lot of men and woman are seeing it as a controlling tool and a movement of aggression, lies, misinformation and manipulation. Every time I have heard a feminist argue for feminism I have heard the words male privilege, wage gaps, misogyny (hatred of woman), slut shaming and general dislike against woman. And the only time I have heard these terms is from feminists male or female... but no one else see's it going on.... to which I wonder is the rest of the world blind to what modern feminists see or are modern feminists conspiracy theorists. My beautiful wife is a ceo, I have numerous female friends in elite careers, I am obviously from an established Western civilized world. But here there and every where on the Internet I see these Third wave feminists and I wonder... how? And every time I talk to a feminist I get facts about how woman were treated in the past which makes me feel like I am reading the script to Mad Men.... I never get an actual depiction of it, or a large sample... So please someone tell me, if men were so bad to woman, why would we even pass a bill to allow woman to do what they finally asked to be able to do? Did they ask before and were denied, not to anyones knowledge! Further to that can someone please tell me how in the Western world is feminism still necessary, and why is it not called Egalitarianism - and why are so so many woman these days sick of Feminists? If you don't know your history, and not just you history based on the class you took about social bla bla I am talking actual history, please move on.
Mitth'raw'nuruodo (Grand Admiral Thrawn) Thrawn Triliogy Pro, Vs Ender Wiggin (Con) Ender's Game

Great arguments, and I would like to say again this has been a great debate, however I stick to the opinion Thrawn would emerge victorious. Ender fought the system, but I do not think he beat it. They got what they wanted from him. In the end, they were using him, his being so skilled in battle school was what they wanted, even if he "cheated". In the end, he played into their hands, destroying the Formica for him, and ultimately rendered his victories in book one pyrrich victories in my opinion at best. Thrawn ultimately lost not due to his own faults, but because of a turncoat, and it is believed he would have won if not for this betrayer.
Mitth'raw'nuruodo (Grand Admiral Thrawn) Thrawn Triliogy Pro, Vs Ender Wiggin (Con) Ender's Game

well played, I do not deny that Thrawn is a great commander and if it was possible I would love to see them go up against each other in a galactic battle, you have caused me to entirely rethink my view on who would win in this battle. But after much though i must insist that Ender wiggin would win. Ender was given his own army, an army of seven year olds, I have mentioned this before in my other paragraphs. Think about any child under ten that you know, think of how stubborn, childish, homesick, and downright annoying they are. He was put in charge of an army of them and you know what, he inspired them to think up new ways to destroy a system that was designed to break people. They absolutely devastated the way the game was changed, just out of loyalty to Ender. Thrawn may have NEARLY overthrown a fledgling government, but Ender overthrew a system designed to destroy spirits, he stopped a planet being destroyed, he destroyed a planet, he UNITED a planet and although outside influence, his allies would follow him not blindly, but loyally into battle. I'm also sure that the results he received from each campaign were the best results possible under the circumstances. in your last argument you stated "as goes the law that the heroes must win", what is Ender but a hero. I'm honored to be challenged mentally as I have been by this debate and I am very sad that it is coming to a close, i have saved my trump card until the last round but I am not sure if it within the rules, please give me a fun challenge in the last round and I hope that we can debate again
Mitth'raw'nuruodo (Grand Admiral Thrawn) Thrawn Triliogy Pro, Vs Ender Wiggin (Con) Ender's Game

Once again, great arguments, and I have enjoyed debating with you. Ender is a genius, but I believe he is simply outclassed by Thrawn. Thrawn is a master of understanding his opponents psychology, as is Ender, and I believe that he will be able to poke holes in Ender's psyche, predict his moves, and other sch tricks by using Ender's unstable mental condition against him. As well, Thrawn is a master of obtaining the loyalty of his subordinates, getting the best results possible out of his troops, and obtaining loyalty out of his subordinates. Another one of his impressive feats would be his campaign against the new republic, where he archived many victories despite the fact that his troops were essentially leftovers, even though he ultimately lost, as goes the law that the heroes must win. http://starwars.wikia.com... for more details on Thrawn's feats.