BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social media does more harm than good

Change can be a scary thing, most people that didn’t grow up with smart phones will of course tell you how much better their time was. The communication hasn’t gone away though, it has just shifted. Also the spread of misinformation has not gotten worse, if anything it has just shifted. Misinformation was spread through rumors and newspaper before, and you wouldn’t have the option but to believe it. If you see something on Facebook and you are unsure if it is true or not, then look it up. People that lie and continue to lie will be fought and eventually discredited, it just takes time. The link you provided actually proves my point. Since the information was a hoax, you now know that it isn’t thanks to the link you provided and your eagerness to look into it. Look at this picture (6). See the resemblance from one hundred years ago to today? People are characterized by being either extroverted or introverted but more importantly people are also characterized by being approachable. I myself tend to be very approachable, not exactly sure why but people will start conversations with me all the time. If you yourself want more social interactions around you then smile and give the people around you the feeling that you are willing to engage in a conversation. Take a look at the difference between the two in the picture below (7). Would you rather talk to the person on the left or the right? The one on the left seems to resemble a mug-shot look while the one on the right seems to be very approachable. This could explain why you are having issues with finding people wanting to talk more. You could be giving off ‘bad vibes’ or you could be in a place where introverts are very common, either way social media has not lessened the amount that we talk to each other. The last point of emphasis is that social media helps people find their significant other. My girlfriend and I met through social media and we couldn’t be happier today. She worked at a smoothie place and wasn’t very approachable, she gave off the idea that she already had a boyfriend. However, because she and I met online and I knew she was single we could get to know each other and start a relationship. Now let me ask you, would the world be a better place if smart phones and social media didn’t exist at all?
Social media does more harm than good

I think you bring up some very valid arguments. I definitely agree that social media has helped small businesses. However, I'd like to refute your refute about the spread of misinformation. You state that you can fact check, but that doesn't mean that people utilize this ability. With social media virtually everywhere. One can look through their facebook feed while waiting in line or just to pass a few moments of time. They will see an interesting article especially the click baits that lure people in with interesting titles. They then don't proceed to check the valitity of the information. Some people even go to the extent of readign the title of the article and not reading the full article. The titles themselves can be misleading in order to catch the readers eye. You also get the telephone effect, where something may start off true but as a story is reposted and shared, people can often twist it by even just a little. This article (http://www.cnn.com...) talks about how quickly false information is spread on social media. I'd also like to expand on my original argument that it causes society to become more antisocial. Almost everytime I go out in public or to a restraunt, I notice groups of people together physically but they are starting down at their phone, rather than interacting with the real world. They feel the need to constantly be updated or updating. For example, at concerts you've got people holding up their phones to take videos of the concert to upload later rather than just enjoying the concert. They aren't focused on living in the present but rather focused on what they are doing to "get the likes". It also makes us less social because we have turned our primary communication into texting and texting is far different than a conversation in real life. Texting is just communication through words but communication involves much more such as body language and tone. Social media kills the humanistic aspect of communication. Sure you can signify laughter with an lol, but the feeling and interaction is so much different with a real laugh.
Social media does more harm than good

I will be arguing that social media does NOT do more harm than good. Not necessarily to prove that it does more good however there are some interesting points that will help my case. First Social media has helped the growth of small businesses. Social media is used to drive targeted traffic, boost the site’s SEO, and learn from its consumers through data collection (1). Here’s a look at the social media often used for small business owners: Second These sites act as a social calendar that allow a person to visually see upcoming events for people hundreds of miles away. More birthdays are remembered, more grandmas are poked, and more social events begin to take place such as parties or game night. Third Many social media sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook have helped people get a job. In some cases, having a good online reputation can mean great opportunity. Being well adapted to the newest technology and ways of communicating can help advance their career as well as the people who decide to hire them. In fact, 9% of small businesses believe that a social media expert would be the most helpful for their business (3). Refuting spread of misinformation It does not increase the spread of misinformation (per person), actually quite the opposite. More information has been spread since the home computer was invented and the world wide web ensued. Propaganda has been used for over a century to tell lies and persuade the people, the difference today is that now people have the option to fact check (4). On Facebook for instance an individual has the choice of following a web page that has no scientific support or following someone who just rants and raves. Refuting that cyber bullying is a cause for social media to do more harm than good It’s hard to refute that social media has caused the spread of cyber bullying, however this also has reduced the amount of physical bullying. The bullying isn’t necessarily more common; it has just shifted to the computer. Many social media sites have taken extreme measures to reduce and hopefully eliminate cyber bullying (5). Social media doesn’t want people to leave their website from cases of cyber bullying; it would result in a loss of profits. In other words, social media has helped reduce physical violence. (1) http://www.contentfac.com... (2) http://rocksdigital.com... (3) https://hollyherick.com... (4) https://www.smashingmagazine.com... (5) https://www.merryjane.com...
Social media does more harm than good

I believe that social media has created a more superficial way to keep us all connected. Sure we keep in touch with old friends, but it is very limited. It's often times just scrolling through pointless news feeds. It becomes such an addiction that it distracts us from real life. It causes us to not pay attention to the real life interactions around us. I'd also like to argue that it causes an increase of false information being spread and it can also increase cyber bullying.
Abiogenesis is the most likely explanation for life.

I would've ran my calculations for RNA but nucleotides are more complex than amino acids. They include more nitrogen atoms and phosphate, which is a 100 times rarer than nitrogen. Plus, the Stanley-Miller experiment didn't report any findings of nucleotides at all. The synthsis of nucleotides even require many organic precursors (Wikipedia).I would be happy to look into it even further and provide probability calculations for the formation of the first RNA. I apologize for not doing it right now, because that would be an added argument by me, and I'm only supposed to defend the argument I presented. Plus, honestly, I didn't have the time to look into it.“Put one right-handed amino acid in the chain and the protein will not function.”Your refute was not very clear and the source doesn't mention anything about chirality (The left-handedness or right-handedness of amino acids).“Both peptide bonds and non-peptide bonds occur in nature in equal amounts”You have defined what a peptide bond is, but you didn't mention the impossibility of amino acids sticking together in different ways. There are a lot of ways. They are not heard of because they don't produce relevant molecules."Proteins form and break down over and over again this is completely irrelevant". If proteins form and break down then there's no reason why functioning proteins don't follow that rule and not break down. So it's not logical to assume that non-functioning proteins are the ones that only break down giving another chance for the formation of a functioning protein. If they both break down and form again, then the proportions will fluctuate but remain the same essentially."10^23 self-replicating proteins each of which could initiate natural selection"I may have underestimated it when I said 35 grams. But what I didn't mention was that Earth's oceans contain 10^24 liters. That's 10 liters for every protein. It's still highly unlikely, even if I surrender to the fact that proteins can naturally become self-replicating by time."The first cells would be very simple and would have been consumed by the monstrous dinosaur bacteria we have today long ago"If they are very simple, then why can't you describe it in detail?And if they were really that simple, why wasn't anyone able to synthesize it? Bare in mind scientist synthesize new types of DNA everyday.
Random questions

"1. What are the colours of the rainbow?" Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple."2. What is a saola?" I don't know."3. What is black and white and red all over?" A bloody zebra."4. Why does Dora explore?" Because her parents are so dissappointed in her that she has to find comfort with talking animals."5. Why are you saying to be or not to be when you could be and not to me?" Lolwut?
Random questions

1. To be a famous person but also not to be one. (You asked this question twice already) 2. Depends on the deal 3. How about NONE of the ABOVE. But if you insist probably OBAMA 4. To keep government stable and to stop other governments to bulldoze other countries. 5. Well, since "question" is the subject in the question... it is spelt correctly and used in the question correctly. So therefore The question is correct. Here are my last 5 to you: 1. What are the colours of the rainbow? 2. What is a saola? 3. What is black and white and red all over? 4. Why does Dora explore? 5. Why are you saying to be or not to be when you could be and not to me? Thanks, for debating with me on this great debate!!!!!!!
Random questions

"1. How tall is tall?" It really depends on the age."2. Do you think that some people are not attractive at all?" Well, obviously. I'm straight, therefore I don't think men are attractive. And there are also women that aren't attractive."3. Is my hair 4 meters long?" No."4. What is my favorite variety or varieties?" Straight-up gangsta rap. "5. Why am I asking you these random, stupid questions?" That is what this debate is about. My five for you: 1. To be or not to be? 2. Deal or no deal? 3. Romney or Obama? 4. Do we need political parties? 5. Is this question incorrect?
Random questions

1. Because I wanted to be serious (its a free country at least from where I am) 2. I said I didn't know how Japanese bacon tasted like because if I don't compare Canadian Bacon to some other, I couldn't say which is better. PS. Canadian Bacon taste like Canadian Bacon 3. There are people aka some hate groups in North Mexico 4. Since you have to speak English in England not Spanish in England 5. You should start a debate on something you want to debate about. Here are my question to you: 1. How tall is tall? 2. Do you think that some people are not attractive at all? 3. Is my hair 4 meters long? 4. What is my favourite variety or varieties? 5. Why am I asking you these random, stupid questions?
Random questions

"1. Why am I here in this world?" Well, your mommy and daddy loved each other very much..."2. Who is bigger, Yeti or Bigfoot" Yeti."3. Where am I" Debate.org"4. Name 7 superheroes that end with -man" This isn't reall a question, but what the heck.1. Batman2. Superman3. Aquaman4. Spider-Man5. Iron Man6. Iceman7. Deadman"5. What is my grandfather's name (from my mother's side)" Well, this isn't fair at all. But I'll give it a shot: Archibald. My five for you:1. Why do you want to be serious?2. Why did you say that you didn't know how Japanese bacon tasted, when I asked about Canadian bacon?3. Why can't I go to the north of Mexico?4. Why can't I use Spanish in England?5. What should I start a debate about?
Random questions

1. Because I want to be serious 2. Two. One to change it, and another one to change it back again. 3. Don't know how Japanese bacon taste 4. Sure, just don't go to the north of Mexico 5. Why not. But don't use it in England. Here are my questions to you? 1. Why am I here in this world? 2. Who is bigger, Yeti or Bigfoot 3. Where am I? 4. Name 7 superheroes that end with -man 5. What is my grandfather's name (from my mother's side)
Random questions

"1) If a tree falls in a jungle, and no one is there, would it make a sound." Yes. "2) If earth was to be completely destroyed, what would be my last words?" The money is in the...."3) How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck can't chuck wood." Well, since the woodchuck can't chuck wood, there is no wood being chucked."4) David's mother has 4 children. They are Bob, Morris and Leo. What is her 4th child's name?" David."5) If I want to be something, what would I not wan to be?" Nothing.My five for you:1) Why so serious?2) How many politicians does it take to change a lightbulb? 3) Is Canadian bacon good?4) Should I go to Mexico?5) Should I learn Spanish?
Random questions

1. The chicken crossed road because he was running away form KFC. 2. The fox says nothing except it signature sound. Unless in fiction. 3. I want to be something but also I do not want to be something 4. None of the above. There is ONLY 1 bigfoot. 5. Because 7 ate(eight) 9 or because 7 was a registered six(sex) offender. Here are my 5 brilliant questions to you: 1. If a tree falls in a jungle, and no one is there, would it make a sound. 2. If earth was to be completely destroyed, what would be my last words? 3. How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a would chuck can't chuck wood 4. David's mother has 4 children. They are Bob, Morris and Leo. What is her 4th child's name? 5. If I want to be something, what would I not wan to be?
Random questions

"1) Why did the cow say moo?" Cows say moo because that is their signature sound. Like how dogs say woof, cats say meow, birds go tweet, and the mouse goes squeak."2) What came first, the chicken or the egg?" The Chicken."3) Should freedom of speech be protected at all cost?" Not necessarily ALL costs, but it definitely should be protected. "4) If Superman fought Scooby Doo, who would win?" Superman curbstomps. Of course that's animal cruelty and Supes would be arrested, but still."5) Why am I asking you these random questions?" You are asking me these random questions because that is what this debate is about.My five for you:1) Why did the chicken cross the road?2) What does the fox say?3) To be or not to be?4) Is the plural of "Bigfoot" Bigfoots or Bigfeet?5) Why was 6 afraid of 7?
Random questions

Hi, this debate is just for fun. The 2 simple rules are that I ask 5 questions and then you answer them. Then you ask me five questions and I answer them. 1) Why did the cow say moo? 2) What came first, the chicken or the egg? 3) Should freedom of speech be protected at all cost? 4) If Superman fought Scooby Doo, who would win? 5) Why am I asking you these random questions?
US Drug Laws against the responsible use of recreational drugs represents Sharia Law in America.

In the year, 1897, "Times are beginning to change. The morality movement against alcohol has begun to take hold in various areas of the country. Also, concerns about the use of opium and cocaine beyond medicinal uses is gaining attention." http://facultypages.morris.umn.edu... I do not argue the role of racism in the formation of US drug laws. However, that statement would imply that such racist laws, thereafter; would only effect minorities being targeted and this is not the case. All races, white included have been swept up in US drug laws, making such laws not in theory inherently "racist". US drug laws are based on morality thus effect everyone, racist laws would only effect those being targeted by such racism. Our drug laws were not made in a vacuum, meaning there is not always one simple reason why a law has been drafted. Laws can be created in an attempt to solve more than one perceived issue. Drug laws, including alcohol and recreational drugs, were formed from out of Puritan, Protestant, Christian beliefs on morality. The fact that such laws overwhelmingly effect minorities, due to extremely unfair practices, is not the premise I am arguing. I concede minorities, even early Chinese settlements in San Francisco, were/are unfairly affected by US drug laws, however; that fact does not divert from our current drug laws being based in Christian morality. Early Christian beliefs led to Sharia or morality laws placed on Americans who choose to use recreational drugs. Early Islamic beliefs led to Sharia or morality laws placed on Muslims who choose to use recreational drugs.
US Drug Laws against the responsible use of recreational drugs represents Sharia Law in America.

My opponent uses the argument “against pleasure” religious reason are responsible for drug bans. My opponent then sites how they have unsuccessful, or temporary. The only anti-drug laws in America that have lasted are ones that were based not on religious grounds but on racial ones. By my opponent's own admission anti-drug laws have been used more against minorities. Rather than give a rebuttal to my argument my opponent as simply ignored my argument and expanded there opening statement.
US Drug Laws against the responsible use of recreational drugs represents Sharia Law in America.

My premise states US drug laws represent "Sharia" in America. Define: Represent - Constitute; amount to I will argue that Sharia laws are Arabic laws rooted in religious moral code, leading to the oppression of the people. I will argue that US drug laws are American laws rooted in religious moral code, leading to the oppression of the people. Sharia law or Islamic law deals with many issues in Muslim culture, including social issues such as the use of alcohol, tobacco, and recreational drugs. Islam prohibits the use of any substance that causes intoxication. The purpose behind Sharia law is to assist in the guidance and encouragement of Muslims to take the correct path. Disobeying sharia leads to a punishment that varies from country to country, some countries have very strict consequences, while other countries may have less cruel forms of punishment. Many minority groups, non-Muslims, as well as unorthodox Muslims find sharia law to be harsh and oppressive, basing judgement on a moral rules that only comport with a portion of Islamic society. Anti-drug laws in the US, began with the Puritans, who attempted to prohibit the use of tobacco and successfully banned public smoking in Massachusetts in 1632, however, the ban did not last. The Puritans next attempt at prohibition included caffeine, they were once again, unsuccessful. To this point in history, the puritans had been largely unsuccessful at prohibiting the use of substances that intoxicate the body. Puritan's, meaning "against pleasure", religious views observe intoxication as an unrighteous path to God. The religious pressure to ban alcohol began in the 1830's, lasted for nearly a hundred years and was finally successful in 1919. The first ban on drug distribution was enacted in 1914, recreational drug laws since this first ban have been strengthened and supported by many religious institutions in America for the last hundred years. Reefer madness, a comical 1930's propaganda film, targeted African-americans as marijuana crazed lunatics, that must be prohibited and detained for the protection of christian society. The anti-recreational drug laws have been utilized to detain and oppress Americans, especially minorities in this country for far too long, simply due to the Puritan, "against pleasure", faith. Puritan religious convictions has led to an exorbitant amount of unjust convicts, based on Puritan beliefs, extenuating from a moral code that does not comport with everyone in the society. Muslim religious convictions has led to an exorbitant amount of disciplinary actions, based on Islamic beliefs, extenuating from moral code that does not comport with everyone in the society.
US Drug Laws against the responsible use of recreational drugs represents Sharia Law in America.

While my opponent agrues that drugs are illgeal do to theological rules akin to "Sharia law." This is not reflective in the reasons why the laws were written. They were made illgeal for rasist reason not theological ones. The first anti-drug law was a 1875 San Francisco ordinance to keep Chinese men from luring and corrupting white women in opium dens. This was followed with Federal legislation in 1888 that did not apply to whites. In the early 1900 papers, like the New York Times, begain to report that cocaine was making black men rape white women is the south. This is the reason coca cola 11 years before any law would require them to, negroes under the influence of drugs murdering whites, degenerate Mexicans smoking marijuana, and "Chinamen" seducing white women with drugs. The 1960 was a time of soical up heval. Many Americans fought for civil rights. Many of them smoked weed, and did LSD. The passage of The Controlled Substances Act in 1970 was by large ment to kill this movement. Since the first laws in 1875 to day it is still mostly non whites that are in jail over drugs. I live in a border state. I smoked, and sold weed illegally for many years. In my area, like many others, most people think it is Mexicans or intercitys were the main drug trade comes from. I spent many years running drugs from nice subran areas to the intercities. The thug gang banner in the intercity is not were the drugs are coming from. More often than not is a white subran family that looks like the model citizen. The people the cops ever even think to look at. http://www.columbia.edu... http://www.dogonvillage.com...
abortion should be illegal

So you agree with my statement in which abortion should stay legal and not be illegal? In that case my argument would be the only winning side. I am against abortion being illegal. I am con. Which supports my statement that abortion should not be illegal, in other words unlawful,illicit, or illegitimate. You wrote, word for word, "I think abortion should not be ill eagle even if its bad it should not be illegal becouse what if your poor and don't have money to care for a baby and what if your too young" So since you are agreeing with my argument, I win.