BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The prosecution of Juveniles as an adult should be permitted

1.In the case of more serious crimes (rape, murder, assault with a deadly weapon ect) the argument can be made that committing these crimes requires a certain knowledge or maturity to carry out. Con may try to say that since they're not adults (age-wise) that somehow they're not mature enough or developed enough to be held accountable for said crimes. Especially if there is significant evidence that shows forethought or pre-meditation.This isn't always true. Different people mature faster or slower than others and can be capable of "adult-like" maturity at the ages outlined in R1. 2. The victim in any case deserves the closure and justice that comes from the highest punishment allowed by law in regards to said crime. How is it right that someone who commits a crime such as one of the above outlined, and only receives minor punishment simply because they're not 18. Each crime should be examined on a case-by-case basis and if it can be proven that the suspect has developed far enough along that they know they're doing and they know the effects their actions can have on people then they should be tried as an adult.
The prosecution of Juveniles as an adult should be permitted

Prosecution: 1 the institution and conducting of legal proceedings against someone in respect of a criminal charge: Juvenile: For the context of this Debate using U.S laws, anyone over the age of at least 13 as this is the minimum allowed in some states. Reference here (http://www.nolo.com...) 1st round acceptance. 2 round introductory arguments only. No new arguments in the 5th round. Let's do it.
Legalization of suicide

Suicide itself used to be part of the homicide laws in most places on Earth. Suicide was considered a form of murder"murdering oneself. It is now difficult for us to think of a crime against oneself. For example, how would it be possible to steal from oneself? Some early thinking about suicide considered it a crime against God: The sovereign of the universe owns each and every life. And anyone who 'takes' a life (even his or her own life) destroys something that belongs to God. With a somewhat different twist, within monarchies, all the people (subjects) were said to belong to the king or queen. Thus murder or suicide were crimes against the crown, destroying subjects who belonged to the earthly sovereign. Nowadays almost everywhere, irrational suicide is said to be a form of harming oneself. It is no longer a crime because we want suicidal people to receive psychological help rather than be punished. But when the laws against committing suicide were repealed, usually the law-makers did not change the crime of assisting a suicide. When suicide itself was a crime, it was reasonable to outlaw behavior that assisted that crime. Those who helped people to commit suicide were accomplices. But logically there are problems with continuing to criminalize helping someone to perform an act that is no longer a crime. Careful and consistent laws that replace laws against 'assisting suicide' can separate behavior harmful to a victim (which should remain a crime) from behavior that is helpful to a patient (which should not be a crime). 2. REPEALING OUTDATED LAWS AGAINST ASSISTING SUICIDE This oddity of half-changed ancient laws gives us an opportunity to secure the right-to-die in a completely unexpected place: within the laws against homicide. We can propose replacing all laws against assisting suicide with new laws against causing premature death. Even tho we agree with de-criminalizing suicide and attempted suicide, we still see them as self-harming behaviors that should be discouraged. However, when we look more closely, we notice another kind of behavior that is not harmful. Here are four ways to distinguish irrational suicide from voluntary death: Is the behavior harmful or helpful to the person? Is the behavior irrational or rational? Is the behavior capricious or well-planned? Is the behavior regrettable or admirable? These terms are fully developed in another on-line essay entitled: Will this Death be an "Irrational Suicide" or a "Voluntary Death"? http://www.tc.umn.edu.... If we do not want to encourage irrational suicide, we could revise our laws against assisting a suicide to punish people who assist an irrational suicide. This will require such laws to define irrational suicide so that it does not include wisely helping patients to make their end-of-life medical decisions. Cops try to find evidence of their death, or waste of time.. THey don't waste time they investigate. You never know it was Murder, unless cops was there. What if it was your brother or sister or relatives they sucided but you want to know WHY did they do it, you never find out unless police was there.
Legalization of suicide

We don't need weak-willed individuals on this planet. Those who will suicide over a game, bullying, love etc. are just pathetic imbeciles who deserve to die. And as for patients who are terminally ill, they certainly should be allowed to suicide, they have a valid reason. The benefits of legalization of suicide would be great reduction of population, more productivity (motivated individuals are the ones who will survive, and lesser population required to serve), saving on cops' resources (paperwork, writing case, interviewing family members for cause of suicide, what a waste of time) and reducing food, electricity and water consumption due to reduction of population. Suppose I wished to die, and I got arrested for attempting suicide, won't I face a bigger hell in serving my term in prison or mental hospitals? Won't death be a relief then? Although I doubt many people will suicide if it becomes legal anyway. There are many people who have trudged on despite overwhelming odds, and have faced the challenge of life with dignity. And among them there are some, who must live just to wait for death to come naturally. I don't think the people who don't have the will to live can be compared, can even live with others who hold true to their survival instinct.
Legalization of suicide

I think I would give the bully a pat on the back, he got me rid of a meddlesome and weak-minded fool. And if I am so bent on revenge, I would search tracking software on internet or just hack the relative's account. I can give to my local IT software expert, hacking a laptop should be easy enough. There is mobile verification also, and i will use it to access the facebook/g+ account. And anyways cyber-bullying doesn't seem like a plausible case for a suicide. Most of the times, the bully doesn't know he went that far. Trust me, I know. Con hasn't directly refuted any of my arguments so far. He wants cop enforcement for revenge, which would most likely be criminal. If not, it would ruin the life of the bully who mayn't be that gone far yet, and may result the person to turn into a full-fledged criminal. So my conclusion is that suicide should be legalized as it would reduce the population, indirectly reduce resource consumption, save on cop resources and would reduce number of weak-willed or unmotivated individuals.
Legalization of suicide

If my relatives suicided, I would be damn ashamed. I don't think knowing the reason would give me any peace either. As for assisting suicide, let it remain a crime, if you want to commit an act of suicide, do it yourself. I won't help you do this unnatural act of killing oneself. So my conclusion is that suicide should be legalized as it would reduce the population, indirectly reduce resource consumption, save on cop resources and would reduce number of weak-willed or unmotivated individuals. Good luck to con.
Privatization of Water Does more Harm Than Good

If we're making up arbitrary semantic observations, then yes I would agree that your argument both initially and to this point has been left lower than 5000 characters. That mattering in any sense of the word is not something I would agree. It's really about the importance of Privatization of Water" and it doing more harm than good. I have prepared points on both how it exists today and why, would you like to rebuttal or should I continue making points to support my argument? Because it won't be possible for me to refute arguments you haven't made yet. And to be clear" the topic worth debating is the debate topic.
Privatization of Water Does more Harm Than Good

Privatization of Water is an important discussion to have. Water, being at the pinnacle of healthy living, and control being the centerpiece of our political and economic system. However, moreso than the topics themselves, we're here today to discuss does Privatization of water do any more harm than it does good? That remains to be seen, yet there is an indication of truth to be considered. First off, Privatization of water has already happened, to a far more extreme extent than most people realize. In Canada, water is used often for industrial purposes, as I have seen in the case of a local pulp papermill. They have "water rights" to drain a massive freshwater lake through a pipeline right into their privately owned mill. If thats not an example of industrial aquatic procurement and water privatization i'm not sure what is. To summarize: Water Privatization in Industry is already prevalent in water rights. Most people just don't know where to look. Industry uses water every day. What about Commercial Privatization of water, like at a Car Wash? They're paying for access to water which they use to clean cars. An example of a massive private water operation, where commercial businesses profit from the use of water. This is just one example- what about a water bottler? In Canada, they pay next to nothing for their water rights even though they take millions of litres a year purely for the monetization of the natural resource. So Water Privatization happens in business too. What about in everyday life? Do you use a well or a waterline at your residence? That's Water Privatization too. Private water rights if it's a municipal service, and private water ownership if it's from a well. In many ways the question needs to be reapproached because water privatization seems to do more good than harm, already, everyday, on an international scale. It does more good than harm by definition.
Privatization of Water Does more Harm Than Good

Ok, so heres the structure: 1st Round Pro- Rules 1st Round Con- Definitions/ Arguments (At least 3) 2nd Round Pro- Arguments (At least 3) 2nd Round Con- Refutation 3d Round Pro- Refutation and Conclusion 3d Round Con- Conclusion All speeches for rounds must be at least 5000 characters each or else opposing side automatically wins.
if you imaigne it to get the answer, you might aswell imagine the opposite

"maybe some one kicked it of the tree with some advanced kick, maybe not" I never stated that there was a kick, and you saying "maybe not" basically makes your point moot. "my point is they are both imaginary, tell me this, which force caused the apple to fall?" But common sense is used for one of those imaginary thoughts. And if you have to ask the question, then you cannot refute the answer. You have to show that imagining the opposite of what you believe is the answer is the better method of answering, and you didn't.
if you imaigne it to get the answer, you might aswell imagine the opposite

So, the resolution states that "if you imaigne it to get the answer, you might aswell imagine the opposite"For my arguments, I will be using an example to prove my opponent wrong. But before I use my example, let me point out that the resolution is incoherent due to the sub par grammar that is taking place and the lack of a connection between the first part of the statement (Corrected version: If you imagine something to get the answer) and the second part of the statement (you might as well imagine the opposite.)My Example:Let's say that I am taking a test. I have a specific question that I have to answer.The question reads "An apple falls from a tree and hits the ground. What force causes this process?"This is not a multiple choice question, but rather, a question where you have to right down the answer.Based on your resolution, I have two options in mind:1) Answer "gravity" because that's what I believe what the answer is.2) Answer the opposite, which I believe would be normal force.Your logic is telling me that I should answer "normal force" because I don't think this is the answer.First of all, people shouldn't be required to answer what they think is incorrect, seeing as that is requiring them to try the worst and can lower the grade of that person.Second of all, choosing the answer you personally feel is correct is using your common sense, which will make you more likely to get the answer correct.So overall, answering what you imagine is the best answer is a better method to answering something that imagining the oppposite of what you think is correct, because you are more likely to be wrong in that sense, and shouldn't be any sort of requirement, seeing as my opponent said "for sure" in his 1st round, I can assume that means we should "for sure" imagine the opposite of the answer.
The national motto of the United States should be changed.

First of all, bravo for my new opponent new argument, let's us continue shall we? Yes, and maybe I was wrong about using the wrong definition for the word God, but let's us look at our next argument of my lovely opponent: "Con claims that it is not the Christian god in particular that is referenced in the national motto. A quick recounting of the names of the gods of the three monotheistic religions will reveal that the motto could only have one of these in mind. Below are the names of the deity commonly used for each: Judaism - Yahweh Islam - Allah Christianity - God From this we can eliminate the idea that the motto referring to all religions. Even if it is referencing religion in general, it is still a preference for theism over non-theism by nationally recognizing a "Being perfect in power..." Of course I agree these are the real name for Judaism, Islam and Christianity, but these are the NAMES of their GODS, Jews believe God's name is Yahweh, Christians believe their God's name is Jesus, and Muslims believe their God's name is Allah, but then we can clearly see the match, they're all what we call God, if even now you debate or talk with a Jew, Muslim or Christian who speak English, or you study about religions in High School, Muslims, Jews and Christians, they still call the one they worship is God. "As we have seen by the definition of capital g 'God', the motto is referring to a monotheistic religion (or, theism in general). We have also seen, in my first round argument, that the Establishment Clause prohibits the federal government from forcing an individual "to profess belief or disbelief in any religion." Finally, we have seen from the definition of motto provided above, that a motto is "a short saying expressing the guiding maxim or ideal of a family or organization." Yes, true, but not just Christianity but like I said above, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all of those religions above all worship one divine power name God, so now all 3 of those religions are monotheistic religions, I don't think which one of them this country specify at. "In our representative form of government, anything passed by the government is a representation of the populace. So when the federal government officially professes a belief in religion (as they did in making our national motto 'In God We Trust'), the entire population of legal U.S. citizens is professing a belief in religion. Unfortunately, the Establishment Clause strictly prohibits the federal government from forcing anyone to profess a belief in religion." Then if so why don't they just abolish every religions that against Christianity if they're all Christians? That's because they still love the laws and still need to follow the laws, that's why. Conclusion: Overall, what was this government did was just saying In God we trust, although the term God can be used for Islam, Judaism or Christianity. But what's this country trying to prove? the United States of America is trying to tell us that In God we trust, that's why our country is One from many, this is one nation, under God. USA is the best.
The national motto of the United States should be changed.

First of all, we should take a good look at our definition of the word "God" 1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3: a person or thing of supreme value4: a powerful ruler. So God is a supreme power that control over our universe, an infinite source or power, a divine or even just a powerful ruler. Let's just talk in a respectful manner, which part of the word "God" in "In God we trust" are one of these? In the history of the world, not just Christianity but there are also lots of religions that worship God, or at lease believe there's a God, so we don't have an actual religion to say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion. .. ", so therefore, you can't really identify that God is a Jewish God Yaweh, Christian God Jesus or Muslim God Allah. Furthermore, as we know a religion is a belief, a belief and in a scientific manner we can call that a theory, a theory that God is real, that He's a divine and supreme power or at least like the Creationist scientists believe, a force that created the Universe in a neat and organized way. But unfortunately our country is also putting a belief forcefully into our student belief and theory by teaching Evolution in our Public school system, although both Intelligent design and Evolution are both scientific theories. So can we say that US is establishing a law that violating other people's belief? E Pluribus Unum is actually base on history is a word that quotation from a gentlemen magazine quoted from a French artist that design our dollar bill, yes it still has a super and special meaning, E Pluribus Unum yes is a reflection of our country our principles, we want other countries to know that: "Wow, this is a God chosen country! " our of many, only one, E Pluribus Unum. If there's no God, there's no Thanksgiving, no God no Christmas, no God no Easter, God and church has been a source of morality, truth and righteous as we always know: "One nation under God" Therefore I extremely suggest that we need to let the motto "In God we trust attach on the money and become a great motto for the United States for years and years to come. Thank you.
obama is a bad president

"I am not retarted i am simply stating the facts that you obviously can not argue with."What 'facts' have you given? The one legit claim you have made was utterly destroyed by evidence showing that Obama is doing ok-ish in terms of job creation while the rest of your argument is just rambling conspiracies that only a retarded person could believe in. "As far as everyone is concerned every one who isint without a home is rich"Having a house doesnt mean youre rich and you yourself defined rich as millionaires and billionaires. "Also taxing rich people would make the rich people poor and then where would we be?"Seriously, were you dropped on your head as a child? "Tell me why you can't answer any of my questions and why you insult me instead of making any good argument."Im claling you retarded because your arguments are quite retarded.... You actually claimed that Obama told Oprah to stop Donald Trump from asking about his Birth Certificate rather then just release it.... Even though thats Obama gave his birth certificate years ago now!http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.foxnews.com...http://www.snopes.com...Obama gave his birth certificate, he didnt cover it up like you claim. I extend all other arguments and would like to apologize for the Pro's retardation.
obama is a bad president

I am not retarted i am simply stating the facts that you obviously can not argue with. This is my final argument, he wants to tax rich people. Define rich, a billonare millionare. As far as everyone is concerned every one who isint without a home is rich. Besides that if he were to tax rich people shouldnt he be taxed too. Also taxing rich people would make the rich people poor and then where would we be? In a broke country of course. Tell me why you can't answer any of my questions and why you insult me instead of making any good argument.
obama is a bad president

"I do know that Obama said he was going to increase jobs and yet millions of people have lost their jobs"Well youre misinformed...http://www.gq.com...http://2.bp.blogspot.com...http://www.dpcc.senate.gov...http://www.usnews.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com..."not only that but he has a fake birth certificate and Donald Trumph almost proved that but Obama got desperate and begged Oprah Wenfrey to make him stop. If he is such a great president why did he get so nervous? What was so important in his birth certificate that he didn't want the AMERICAN people to see it? Answer me that."Oh I see...... Youre completely retarded.
obama is a bad president

true, but I do know that Obama said he was going to increase jobs and yet millions of people have lost their jobs. not only that but he has a fake birth certificate and Donald Trumph almost proved that but Obama got desperate and begged Oprah Wenfrey to make him stop. If he is such a great president why did he get so nervous? What was so important in his birth certificate that he didn't want the AMERICAN people to see it? Answer me that.
Human Life Begins at Fertilization

“That doesn’t mean humans don’t have a unique DNA fingerprint. It simply means that some other animals also have 46 chromosomes in their unique DNA fingerprint.” -Once again, my opponent shows no other premises to indicate a “unique DNA fingerprint,” other than 46 chromosomes. I will concede to Pro that human life begins to develop at fertilization. However, this is not enough criteria to biologically classify it as a member of the human species—by any stretch of logic. To state that a group of cells bears some characteristics of a human being is quite different than saying the same cells are a member of the human species! To even say it could develop, in the future, into a human is still insufficient. This would be equivalent to looking at the blueprints for a skyscraper and saying, “Look! It’s a skyscraper!” Incidentally, my opponent has stumbled upon a fascinating existential dilemma. He implies that essence precedes existence. Meaning, the organism being developed is simply fulfilling the abstract blueprint of an already designed creature. I’m sure that my opponent would argue that zygotes are simply fulfilling the cosmic order of things (i.e. God), therefore they are humans. Sartre would argue that man is “defined only insofar as he acts.”(1) I do not believe that essence precedes existence. I believe that existence must precede essence because humans can only perceive an essence after they have, in fact, existed! Contrary to Pro’s indication of my loneliness in this argument, many embryologists have never stated that the zygote is a full-fledged member of the human species. This is a misrepresentation. They have simply indicated that human development has begun at the zygote level(2). Pro reads that sentence, yet all he sees is “human” and “zygote.” My opponent hastily attributes his boldness in species classification to the entire scientific (and philosophical) community. I wish to extend my sincerest thanks to Pro. I petition you to vote Con, simply because Pro’s argument only leads to misrepresented science and failed logic. References: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.princeton.edu...