BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
TV is bad for kids

Television isn"t the center of the world, as this is the impression I"m getting from this argument. There is a lack of statistics that you present in your arguments therefore may cost you the victory of the debate, as I did the same; I am personally speaking through a study that was made by a scholar which its textbook is perhaps too thick for those who isn"t fond of reading. Now, onto the debate: Television, as I said before isn"t one of the reasons. There are many things that influence the impulsive behaviors such as other adolescents who developed such rebellious thinking and decision making due to the neighborhood and living conditions that they come from. If we"re speaking from an idolize perspective then perhaps television can be a influential factor but realistically speaking, television isn"t the cause, it"s more or less the people whom they associate with outside of televised media and how they were brought up. Television does promote such shows that may be too violent and to the parent or youth advocate, it"s perhaps a bad influence but it"s inevitable. You cannot justify that television is the root evil of all violence that happens within the youth, if that be the case; then wouldn"t the government removed television by now to prevent such things? From a jokingly perspective, could the reason why we go to war is because we saw an amazing war movie or played video games such as "Call of Duty" or "Gears of War" that had so much gore and then we believe: "What the hell? Let"s go and kill people because that movie made it look awesome! " to "I hate you, therefore when I see you" I"m going to have an AK-47 at hand and blast your head open for disrespecting me! " You see where I"m coming from with this? Are these legitimate motives for people to go to war just because it looked so cool? There"s more to it than that obviously, same thing with television " there is more to the adolescent violence and rowdiness than just television. Yes, there is some evidence things on television promote such reckless behavior for example the series Jersey Shore where it promotes a lot of drinking, sexual contact, the night life and fighting but again, it"s not the fault of the television it"s the parents and it"s almost impossible for parents to have control of this because well" adolescents have their way in getting around it. I think you"re trying to develop a utopian perspective where if we ban television then everything will be a better place. Trust me, we all wish that and from the looks of things (outside of television) it"s not happening. Even though my argument isn"t as great as I wanted to be, blame midterm week. With that!
TV is bad for kids

although you say that the violence happens outside of media, tv can influence this. tv is one of the most influential sources now days. kids will most likely learn from the characters. even though you say that children can learn by using websites such as pbs, there are actually a few bad points to this. studies show that toddlers should not watch tv becasue this could interfere with their brain development. the "educational" shows on pbs last for a long time, and children should not be allowed to watch more that 1 hour of educational programming per day. some kids only watch them just for the fun of it. some children might not want to watch this. violence outside is usually caused by the fact that kids watch a lot of tv, and learn the habits. if these children did not watch tv, there might be less violence.
TV is bad for kids

You mention a fifteen year old, that isn"t considered as a child but instead is an adolescent. A child above thirteen who is experiencing puberty is considered as adolescents and not a child according to a study conducted by Laurence Steinberg from his text: Adolescence, the ninth edition (currently taking a class on that at this moment). Of course, there are influences that an adolescent may go through and would get the impression that it"s appropriate because it"s considered as "cool". Such influence which may instigate such behaviors is just another way for adolescents to develop their own sense of identity. Adolescents would be influenced to such things from not just television but all sorts of technologies that may encourage this supposedly cool trend of violent and disorderly behavior. Television is perhaps the just 5% of the influences but another thing that may instigate the violent and disorderly motives behind adolescents are peer groups, the neighborhood they come from, and so forth. By generalizing that television is the reason why we have such a violent youth, then there are a couple of things you are also missing; things OUTSIDE of technology. The only possible solution for "children" according to what you presented from not being exposed to such violent Medias is for the parent to restrict them from being exposed to such things and already that"s difficult because of the many influences that are out there. It"s literally inevitable for adolescents to be sheltered to such influences. If one would perhaps shelter their child from such things then maybe that can work but in actuality, they are more likely to rebel against them and act even worse to the parents because the child is being restrained from watching whatever they please. Though we wish to find a solution that would put a stop to the impulsive behaviors that adolescents show today, it"s impossible and we would have to grow accustomed to their behaviors and find a way to change them or hope that they"ll understand what they"re doing is wrong. This is coming from a guy who lives in an inner-city neighborhood where violence happens every day, I can make a long list on the reasons why adolescents today act so violently OUTSIDE of media; maybe that"s an over exaggeration but there are other reasons.
TV is bad for kids

Although you say these children are still young, they can be influenced by their program they are watching. They might think this behavior is cool and acceptable because they are broadcasting it on tv. They are still young and do not understand. Violence can also be influenced. For example, if a good guy hits the bad guy, the kids will think violence is ok because the bad guy is doing it. In the end, the children think they can also be like the good guy. Although there are shows like PBS, kids might not be interested and the won't keep on watching it, you can't expect a 15 year old to be watching kids shows, most likely, they will want to watch the newest movies, which might be violent. Parents are also allowed to use the v chip. But sometimes, that doesn't work. The v chip wont block any cartoons even if it does have some cartoon violence to it.
TV is bad for kids

I find this particular argument interesting as it addresses what children should do and not do; and also bringing up the development of the child later on thanks to the influences that they were exposed to. Therefore, I"ll attempt to put up a decent argument because I"m somewhat both sided on this. The development of the child is important to look into but I doubt its television that plays a huge role in the development but instead it"s the parents that determine the development of the child such as how they"re going to be brought up. Your premise of "TV is bad for kids because it really screws up the brain" is too broad because you"re talking about all types of television including televised programs such as PBS Kids that actually help with the development of children by giving an early introduction to the English language and simple mathematics through examples that appeal to the kids interest at that time. Some television actually teaches kids. Refer to a review (.pdf) in the following link for more supportive information: http://pbskids.org... By definition of kids however, to somewhat narrow down what you mean; we"re talking about kids who are pre-adolescents (a rough estimate of 2 years of age to about 8 years of age) since adolescence varies as early as 11 years but the common age is around 13 years of age. If I am mistaken about this statement here, please correct me and elaborate on what you mean by kids. However, my stance on this arguments remains unchanged.
the government should intervene in the transition of alternative fuels

You don't grasp the problems with socialist calculation. It is impossible. All government intervention is inevitably counterproductive. You agree that government should remove subsidies from the oil companies. Do you also agree it should remove its anti-capitalist extended "legal liability" protections? If so, then are you aware of how expensive "dirty" resources would be? Private investment in alternative energy sources would thereby be attractive for for-profit purposes. Why does the government need to get involved? Why does the government need to either tax, regulate, subsidize, or nationalize every activity known to man? Again, you use this "we" word -- the ugliest word in the English language. Who is the "we" you speak of? Consumers? Consumers only "waste" money based on the government intervention that enshrines Big Oil and Gas. In the free market, consumers will efficiently allocate their scarce resources. You think socialized alternative-fuel development is a good idea. A "New Deal" in energy. Which alternative do you suggest "we" subsidize? Bio-fuel? How do YOU know bio-fuel is the "right" alternative? How do YOU know that confiscated taxpayer dollars appropriated to bio-fuel will not be wasted? How do YOU know that whatever your chosen energy source, the artificial subsidy will not crowd out private investment in another alternative with greater potential? Do you suggest we just subsidize ALL alternative energy sources? What about ones that don't appear to have much potential at all? What if there is an alternative that will work from this underdog category? SOCIALISM CANNOT WORK. The free market can and will if it is allowed to. I do admire my opponent for sticking to the socialist platform of her chosen presidential candidate. In Round 3, I hope to be further educated on nationalist energy autarky, in addition to collective agriculture, national welfare via the FraudTax "prebate", amending the Constitution to allow for theocracy, and other "conservative" causes that sound more like early 20th-century left-liberalism to me.
the government should intervene in the transition of alternative fuels

you really didn't even address the substance of my argument: ie, that intervening would be economically benefical compared to doing nothing. only tangentally barely did you touch on it... all you did was show an example of where intervening is bad, ie with the gov subsidies to oil companies. i agree we shouldn't have those subsidies. if we didn't, then my argument that we should intervene in the transition would have been subject much longer ago. now, even though you didn't address my argument that it'd be economically better to intervene, contra the simple free market fundamentalist approach... here are some ideas for where this debate really should be headed. ----------------------------- if we wait until the richer can feel it, all that money that's being squandered by teh poor and middle class isn't going to the economy at large cause one thing i wasn't very explicit on. if they can make it for a dollar a gallon, and even if they sold it at 2 a gallon, which is what they say they'd be doing, it'd still work out right. consider, that my google search says the average station produces 700000 gallons of fuel a year. if we have a better infrastructure sooner than later, then taken to the extreme that'd be instead of 3*700k it'd be 2*700k, with a 700,000 saving per station. that, in one year, would be more than enough to pay for a machine there. instead, we're waiting till the rich get pinched... we're wasting at most 700000 dollars a year per gas station. i realize dthe numbers are made optimally for me, and there's a trasition period, but. what the free market fundamentalist would say....wait till gas is 12 dollars a gallon... cause that's the only way the rich and the fuel stations are going to start doing anything: they're not going to do it sooner, cause the richer don't want to be inconvenienced by limited stations, and the stations won't do it, cause they have no consumers. and then, if we did it the free mar fun way, we'd have to wait for those new cars to trickle down.
the government should intervene in the transition of alternative fuels

You agree that "the market" will take care of our energy problems "in the end," but question "but at what cost in the mean time?" The fact is that it is current government intervention that prevents the development of affordable alternative-energy sources right now. Oil, natural gas, and coal are subsidized to the tune of many, many millions of dollars each year; and pollutive energy providers are given liability protection via congressional legislation. In the absence of these subsidies and special legal rights, "dirty" energy sources would be much more expensive, thus allowing for the profitable development of alternatives. The fact is that oil, natural gas, and coal are expensive right now -- more expensive than the prices at the pump or our heating bills would tell us. Our tax dollars work to keep prices lower than they otherwise would be. This is an immoral redistribution of wealth from low-energy users to energy gluttons. The best way to encourage conservation is to let the market accurately price energy without subsidies and other perks. "WE should act now because WE'll look back and see how much WE've wasted on gasoline." Do we live in the former Soviet Union? In China, Cuba, or North Korea? No, we live in the United States of America. "We" should do anything at all -- it is not the government's duty to develop alternative fuels. The Department of Energy did not even exist until Jimmy Carter created it. What good has it ever done? Energy autarky is not an appropriate goal. Japan imports virtually 100% of their energy needs and they are the second strongest country in the world. Saudi Arabia imports little/no energy, and they are a global weakling. In fact, countries strong in natural resources suffer from "Dutch Disease" and are typically economically stagnant. The question is: Do we believe in the free market, or do we believe in socialistic central planning? My opponent is a Huckabee-ite, so if she stands with her candidate, she stands for the former. But sensible people know that the government is not smart enough to pick winners and losers, and the best thing it can do -- in every case -- is get out of the way and let private individuals and companies efficiently allocate resources to meet human needs. That is what markets do. It is not what governments do.
the government should intervene in the transition of alternative fuels

Well, my attempts to rattle you with insults have not worked. You have stood your ground, no matter how wrong you are. Kudos to you for that. No one is smart enough to be a central planner. You admit that YOU are not smart enough, but who is? If there is someone smart enough, how do "we" (the dumb people) know enough to recognize that person? Your premise is that Communism can work if only we can find an intelligent and benvolent dictator. I can assure you that Mike Huckabee is not that man! But more importantly, I can assure you that no such man exists. If markets are allowed to operate freely, then, in the aggregate, the answer will be discovered. This is the "wisdom of crowds" principle. How do "we" know how many cell phones to produce? "We" don't. But independent actors in the market do. This is how markets work. The only way to sort out the "best" alternative energy is to open it up to for-profit competition. As certain energy sources are deemed unprofitable, resources will be allocated elsewhere. Eventually, only those sources that are affordable and/or offer some other specific benefit, arousing enough aggregate demand to justify their production, will win out. The government CANNOT perform this function, no matter how noble its aims. "Without information provided by market prices it is impossible to rationally allocate resources. Those who agree with this criticism claim it is a refutation of socialism and that it shows that a socialist planned economy could never work." Ludwig von Mises proved this in the 1920s. His theoretical findings were confirmed by the collapse of socialism around the world in the late 1980s. Bringing it back in the United States is NOT a good idea, and will unquestionably cause more problems then it solves.
the government should intervene in the transition of alternative fuels

You seem to think throwing around the word "liberal" and socialist etc is an argument. I'm more capitalist than I am liberal, by the way. And generally the free market is the optimal method. Just not here. I recognize it's not wise to work in generalizations like "no government intervention ever" But, you did pose some interesting questions. As a genberal answer, I would say there's a lot of fact specific questions out there, and it does all depend on the facts: that doesn't mean that someone isn't qualified to know what they're doing. here's some likns where i got the 1 dollar and two dollar etc stuff. the links are good as per facts of what i'm referring to. http://www.wired.com... http://blog.wired.com... http://www.wired.com... http://www.businessweek.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://media.cleantech.com... http://media.cleantech.com... http://crave.cnet.com... i wouldn't be opposed to madating a tax on gasoline, so it'd be less tax payer confiscated from people who don't drive. (but practically speaking, everyone is affected by if you step back from vague theories of people in seclusion etc) really it should just be from taxes as everyone is taxed. ***whatever your chosen energy source, the artificial subsidy will not crowd out private investment in another alternative with greater potential? Do you suggest we just subsidize ALL alternative energy sources? What about ones that don't appear to have much potential at all?*** then we subsidize them all and see who wins, perhaps. but really, i'm sure there's people who know which are best though... you act like professionals are ignorant fools. the underdog can get help from the government if they need it too. just fyi, free market fundamentalists like to say government can't work ever etc... i think the reasons i'm describing are showing that it could work, if it's done right. you have a point that practically speaking, it might not, given all the crazy sides. my main point is that in theory, if it's done right... policy driven by the government can be done right, like i'd contend on this issue. fyi, i'm not sticking to the platform of my chosen candidate... my issues are my own and i disagree with him on many things. my biggest pet peeve is people who are defined by artificial social conventions: political affiliations etc, instead of thinking for htemselves. but the good outweight the bad with my candiate.
Lamborghini is better than Porsche

Porsche is a much higher rate of production car, lambos are less and more handmade or used to be, lambos a finiky and cost a lot more to upkeep Porsches are built to be more reliable whereas lambos are built to be like a race car they are meant to go fast but give up reliability for the most part, so for over all daily driving a Porsche is better Porsches don't usually compete with a lambos top speed , but outlast them that's shy they do well in the 25 hour races, Porsche has spent many years getting performance and dependability,
Wet Feet Dry Feet Act of 1994

And now you expose the primitive premises. Guess what? Castles don't work! You know why? Because the bad guys have airplanes and bombs and such. You are trying to fight a 21st century conflict with 15th century tactics. You can't win that way. Terrorists aren't there to "overrun you," they are there to make you afraid so you eliminate freedoms and thus get your own citizens against you in the long run. Your policy plays into their hands.
Wet Feet Dry Feet Act of 1994

Safety is not a matter of the borders, because organized terrorists can get through whatever legitimate channels you leave (by acting for a while as though they were noncriminals, and using money to push their way through). Meanwhile, Cuban innocents, without money, cannot get through the "legitimate" channels. Safety is a matter of, ultimately, first being as committed as possible to making sure you are right (impossible while taking measures that specifically act only against innocents), then eliminating those threats to safety that don't care if you're right, not by way of guarding borders, but by way of guarding strategic locations, killing your enemies, etc. Furthermore, I have yet to see one terrorist come out of Cuba to attack the United States. The only terrorists there are the Communists, and they are quite satisfied to stay put.
Wet Feet Dry Feet Act of 1994

Well I feel that the Wet Feet Dry Feet Act should be in use still today because if the US is SO interested in border safety, then why not continue this law. The Caribbean natives are allowed to set foot on land (dry foot) and if caught are sent back (wet foot). We don't know the dangers of these people. They can have terrorists on Cuba. We need this act to stay safe.
Wet Feet Dry Feet Act of 1994

Well I believe that the Wet Feet Dry Feet Act (circa 1994) was a great way to show that their is some immigration justice to this world. For anyone that doesn't know what it is the act it is: • The United States agreed to no longer permit Cubans intercepted at sea to come to the United States; rather, Cubans would be placed in a safe haven camp in a third location. Justifying this policy as a "safety of life at sea" issue, Cuba also agreed to use "persuasive methods" to discourage people from setting sail. • United States and Cuba reaffirmed their support for the United Nations General Assembly resolution on alien smuggling. They pledged to cooperate in the prevention of the illegal transport of migrants and the use of violence or "forcible divergence" to reach the United States. • The United States agreed to admit no less than 20,000 immigrants from Cuba annually, not including the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. • The United States and Cuba agreed to cooperate on the voluntary return of Cubans who arrived in the United States or were intercepted at sea. • The United States and Cuba did not reach an agreement on how to handle Cubans who are excluded by the INA, but they did agree to continue discussing the matter. (Grounds for removal include health-related grounds; criminal grounds; national security grounds; Nazi persecution grounds; public charge grounds; illegal entry and immigration law violations; and lack of proper immigration documents.) • The United States and Cuba agreed to review the implementation of this agreement and engage in further discussions. - Well in here it shows that the Caribbean Natives has few advantages over the average illegal immigrant. This information is for another time. This act should stay for put some justice to the world and US safety.
Bobba Fett Is NOT a Badass

I would like to say that we can INFER about it, and from THE MOVIE, not information OUTSIDE OF IT. And just because Bobba is a clone of Jengo does not mean that by edition he is as well. That is why I brought up the clones, if you call him a bad-ss for reason he is a clone of Jengo then you would have to call all the other clones bad-ss as well.To wrap up, I gave 4 reasons as to why Bobba is not a Bad-ss and provided reasons that are shown in the movie without listing any other resources outside of it. I still believe that Bobba is not a bad-ss from the interpretation from the movie. But as fans make him out to be a bad-ss whenever possible I decided to refute it. I think I have wasted my time seeing as my text was misread than the way I had written it. But to whichever way people have read it, I think I still have some to learn, thank you for debating. And thank you for reading.