BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video Games

This is ran all off from memory so don't think all of my information is accurate 100%. I may not make it to round 3, we're losing internet. Sorry Hyrulian. But to the point now... Video games shouldn't be considered normal media as for how easy it is too show. Let's take the PSP for example, one of my favorite stealth games is on there, Manhunt 2. If you have ever seen it, the game is very violent and bloody, not for kids. If a kid saw it and told her/his mother about it she might not be that impressed. Yes songs, movies, and books show this but they have to have them listening, not hearing. They have played "Take it off" By Ke$ha or something like that at a few school dances and they don't really get what it means because they don't listen to it. As such doesn't show them what they mean, but you don't need to think to know what a video game means, since it shows it to you. It won't become apart of normal media because of that, and because of how some people re-act to it very differently. If you're playing a jump scare game such as "Slender Man" and you get jump scared and scream out loud, you're going to get some funny looks. With the stereotype horror gamer (Set by Pewdiepie, seems like) they will scream. Also, it seems people will get angry at video games, a popular example being Flappy Bird. Everyone feels the rage with it, and tend to get a little... crazy. Most gamers my dad has met, not being a gamer himself, are the ones that get angry and take it out on the controller. Going with that, that will make gamers look mentally incapable to control there anger. Thus making Video Games different type of media. For the last point, we can't forget things are remembered or thought of by the bad. When the Sandy Hook shooting happened, the news blamed Video gaming for it. The game that drove him to do it was Video games. But people don't realize it's not the games fault, it's the parents because they failed to teach them reality from fantasy. Could it be part of normal media? One day, but it won't happen anytime soon.
Video Games

Um... Ok. The topic will be; Should Video Games be considered a normal media? Let me explain. Have you ever noticed that if you play video games in public, it's a bit embarrassing. However listening to music or reading a book in public is totally ok? I believe this is because video games are not considered a normal media. This is one of the reasons why games are looked down upon and is subject to controversy. I will be arguing for video games to become considered a normal media, my opponent will argue against it. ======================================= 1. The Gamer Stereotype I believe that one of the reasons why video games are not considered a normal media is because of the stereotype gamers get. When you play video games in public, why do you feel embarrassed? You probably are thinking about what others are thinking of you. You probably think they think you look like this: https://gamerstereotype.files.wordpress.com... This is the gamer stereotype, and it is terribly inaccurate. According to this article [1] when someone calls themselves a gamer, they are just classifying themselves with others who have the same likes as them. They aren't like the stereotype. Plus, with the booming mobile market, there are more people who are getting into video games. Ask yourself this, how many if these people are actually like the stereotype? Not a lot. 2. Similarities What defines media? First, we need to list some types of media (not to be confused with things like the news). Some types of media are books, TV, and music. What similarities make them classified as media? One similarity I see is that they are all past-times and are used for entertainment. Video games can be used as past-times or entertainment. This seems to be the only similarity that these forms of media share, and video games share it as well. 3. Popularity There is a huge gaming community out there. According to source [2], the population of gamers in the US in 2009 was about 170 million. The current population of the US, according to the United States Census Bureau, is about 316.1 million. Doing the math shows that the percentage of gamers to the total US population is about 47%. That's almost HALF the US population, so why not let them enjoy their games without being judged. ===================================== Sources: [1]: https://gamerstereotype.wordpress.com... [2]: http://www.gamespot.com...
People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites. (Second version)

"What exactly does a 12-14 year old need social networking for? " Need is a word I would use sparingly. I am not arguing that a person who is 13+ needs to use social networking sites; I am arguing that they should be allowed one if they are 13+. 12 I am not arguing for, either. I stress 13+. On the parents' permission aspect:I am doing this on the premise that the child will have the parent(s)' permission. I should hope no one would just "make an account". I hope that clarifies. I will take that as a pure acceptance; let the debate continue! Contention One: ConnectivitySNS such as Facebook allow people immense amounts of connectivity with people and places around the world with an almost instantaneous effect! This easily beats phone lines for speed and as a result; it is only unavailable if the person is not online. With modern mobile phones; people can be notified now, too. And it is probable that Internet speed will grow faster than mobile phone speed[1]. So, people who are 13+ should be able to use SNS to contact family members and friends, because it is faster and more cost effective. Contention 2: It's a tool to be used! This applies to the Internet in general but can be applied to SNS, too. Twitter allows you to gain fast, brief, honest, and concise opinions quickly. Why should this be limited to people who are 16+? People who are 13+ can be just as mature and can use it just as effectively as people who are older. Age shouldn't be the deciding factor here, because otherwise we advance into the correlation equals causation fallacy. In this case, it is age equals maturity. While this is true to an extent, we are dealing with a close age range here and thus need more evidence than a general trend. I believe I shall leave it at that for now and will await my opponent's opening contention(s) and refute(s)! Until next round! Source(s):[1]. http://www.nngroup.com...
People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites. (Second version)

Hello, everyone!There is an opinion question about this issue and due to its interesting outcome I have decided to start an open debate on it. But before we continue, allow me to clear up the resolution to help avoid any tedious semantics.So, what does the resolution mean? It means people who are 13+ should be allowed to have accounts social networking sites (SNS). Now I do not mean unconditionally; I mean with restrictions from parents or guardians. These restrictions will vary and are largely irrelevant, but I hope this serves to clear up any misconceptions about the resolution. By social networking sites, I mean - and only mean - sites that fully meet the following criteria:i) A site where one has to make a profile to make interactions with users.ii) A site where people can form relationships. (I don't mean "love" relationships alone, although these are included)iii) A site where one can legally make an account at 13 or older.Now that's out of the way, I will continue with the rules:1) The first round can be for acceptance only. If it is, then the debate will continue normally; if Con wishes to use the first round to make opening contentions, however, Con must put - and only put - "No round posted here as agreed." in the fifth round.2) The burden of proof is shared.3) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters consented.4) A forfeit of a round (for any reason) is a forfeit of conduct; a forfeit of a round is only a forfeit of conduct.I believe that's all, so if anyone has any questions, please post a comment! Good luck to all and allez!
The American Flag should be put at half mast when a prominent and good person dies.

The point is not how much "good" someone did (especially since such statments are so subjective!), the point is that the United States Flag is a symbol of the government of the United States. It's use and display are representative of the government and matters of state. There are plenty of other ways that separate organizations and institutions may honor individuals from within their own membership or leadership. The simple fact is that it is not appropriate to alter the displaying of the United States flag for reasons other than those of national, state-related importance: to honor public officials and military service men and women. For many of those people, the lowering of the flag is the only wide-spread, public display of honor and respect they recieve. For some, we erect permanent memorials, monuments, or establish holidays (such as for Martin Luther King, Jr., someone who arguably served the country, but not in any official capacity, regardless of the politics of the time). But the tradition of lowering the US Flag for deceased statesmen is too important and too specific to extend to any other individual, regardless of his or her notoriaty or achievement. The lowering of the US flag is to show honor to those ONLY who have served this country in offical capacity (or if a sitting president finds another appropriate reason). I am often troubled when in my small hometown, if a tragedy occurs, or beloved citizen passes, the American flag outside the courthouse will be lowered. While it is a very good and decent gesture to wish to express mourning and honor, it is simply not appropriate. If someone prominent in the community dies, and the mayor of a town wishes to display a city flag lowered, that is appropriate. If a former governor of a state or state legislator dies, it is appropriate for the state to display the state flag lowered. If a faculty member or student at a university dies, and the institution has some sort of flag or banner that may be displayed differently, that is appropriate. However, none of these cases warrants altering the most important symbol of the country, the US Flag. Altering the display of the US Flag should be reserved for those occasions when Congress has mandated that it be so. But, just for argument's sake: who would be responsible for determining when and for whom the flag is lowered? What are the criteria?
The American Flag should be put at half mast when a prominent and good person dies.

On June 14, 1923, the United States Congress passed regulations governing the display of the United States Flag. These regualations are known as the Flag Code. The following is the portion of the code pertaining to display of the flag at half-staff. ï¿½175. Position and manner of display . . . m) The flag, when flown at half-staff, should be first hoisted to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff position. The flag should be again raised to the peak before it is lowered for the day. On Memorial Day the flag should be displayed at half-staff until noon only, then raised to the top of the staff. By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law. In the event of the death of a present or former official of the government of any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the Governor of that State, territory, or possession may proclaim that the National flag shall be flown at half-staff. The flag shall be flown at half-staff thirty days from the death of the President or a former President; ten days from the day of death of the Vice President, the Chief Justice or a retired Chief Justice of the United States, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; from the day of death until interment of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or military department, a former Vice President, or the Governor of a State, territory, or possession; and on the day of death and the following day for a Member of Congress. As used in this subsection - (1) the term 'half-staff' means the position of the flag when it is one-half the distance between the top and bottom of the staff; (2) the term 'executive or military department' means any agency listed under sections 101 and 102 of title 5; and (3) the term 'Member of Congress' means a Senator, a Representative, a Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico. To summarize: The flag is to be flown at half-staff on the followign occasions: 1. Memorial Day (only until noon) 2. Death of a governor or foreign dignitary (by order/instruction of the president) 3. For 30 days after the death of a president or former president 4. For 10 days after the death of VP, Chief Justice or former CJ, or Speaker of the House. 5. From death unitl internment for Supreme Court justices, former VP's, Cabinet members, etc. 6. 2 days for members of Congress. In other words, the flag is a national symbol of our government, and should be used to show respect to public officials, and that's all. To over use the flag at half-staff cheapens this display of respect. Any other time is at the discrection and instruction of the President, such as the days after 9/11.
The American Flag should be put at half mast when a prominent and good person dies.

In the opening of this year a man with both religious and social prominance died. The man was the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. His name was Gordon B. Hinckley. The day after he had died everywhere I looked every flag was all the way up the pole. Now the simple fact of Flags being all the way up didnt bother me. The fact that bothered me was that a few years ago when the Pope for the Christian church died EVERY flag was half mast! Both of these men were pominent men in our world. And both did a lot of good as well. Why do we not show respect for both men? We should show respect for anybody who has a major impact on the world for the better. America is trying to recover from a time when race and color and religion were a big impact on how much respect people got in society. If a black religious leader died about a hundred years ago and he did a lot of good do you think he would be given respect at all? No, i dont think he would. However times in America have changed and race or color or religion no longer matter. The only thing that matters is how much good a person does.
Is Rick Grimes actually bad

Safe houses always last for one season which have 16 episodes in total(with the exception of season 1). Rick has some sense of morality so he would only need therapy for a few weeks- maybe a few months and as we know, doctors who don't know how to fight such as Hershel, manage to last around for 3 seasons. That is more than enough time for a therapist to keep Rick stable. The makers of the show do try to pull out some suprising twists but they know that some fans would see that coming so they'd much rather have some other character become the big-baddy
Is Rick Grimes actually bad

You're right, if he keeps going on the path he is on then he might become a villain but what he needs to do is find a completely safehouse stay there with his two kids, wait out the apocalypse for as long as possible in the safehouse and get some therapy(he has found a couple of doctors in the show already ,whose to say a therapist won't be out there).Doing all that could fix him up and he would become good as they come.
In the united states Abortion should be legalized"

First off I didn't understand the wording of the question. It seems convoluted. Second, I am not attacking my opponent personally. I don't know you. I just respond to what you write. Example repeating one word multiple times in one answer. I am pointing facts as you attempted to do. You cannot have different "sources" using the word "may" or "possibility". That isn't definite meaning there is a hole in your argument. 1. That the first 2 points are correct, if you accept the thesis that life begins at conception. There are many scientists that dispute that theory. 2. Same as number 1, but with the added question. Is a mother who miscarries guilty of homicide? 3. Okay...What about pregnancies that are a result of incest or rape? What about The cases were pregnant would severely impair the mothers health? Are the people who are so upset about abortion willing to take on these babies that they claim are wanted? 4. That's funny(Your response). But, studies have shown that pregnancy is more stressful on a woman's body than safe abortions. 5. "Proper medical care" is usually termination of pregnancy. The perpetrator should be punished. Valid point there. 6. Agreed. But very few cases of that happening. 7. Another "that's funny" argument. I agree about the responsible use of contraception. But how do you tell a married woman with seven children, that she should practice abstinence. 8. Tax dollars are not being used for abortion "The Hyde amendment". There many things that I am morally oppose to paying taxes for, but taxes are still paid. WELCOME TO AMERICA!!! 9. Not a valid point because the reason for the abortion, vary. 10. Yes. there are many life experiences that do that, including going into battle. Should we abolish the Armed Forces? Nobody is advocating that abortion be freely available. However, restricting the choices a woman can make, will bring us back to the dark ages. I believe that in the great majority of cases, women think long and hard before making that decision. and of course there are he cases were a pregnancy would seriously impair the mothers health. Abortion would be performed weather it is legal or not. It is much better to have the procedure done by a train health care provider. To the topic/title of this debate, Abortion is already legal and should not be abolished. For these reasons I respectfully ask for your Pro vote "In the united states Abortion should be legalized" Thank You.
In the united states Abortion should be legalized"

First of all, I don't know how my opponent doesn't understand my question. Second, I would appreciate if my opponent would stop the personal attacks Third, can you be professional about this and not whatever you call it!!! Now my opponent failed at attacking my case... I have many counters against the Pro side... I feel most of my opponents case is based on opinion... 1. Now to summarize my case... I would like to state 10 main reasons against abortion Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life 2. No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different. 3. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. 4. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. 5. In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished. 6. Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception. 7. For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence. 8. Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion. 9. Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards. 10. Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress. For these reasons I respectfully ask for your Con vote "The United States Should Not Legalize Abortion" Thank you
In the united states Abortion should be legalized"

Question 1: Life begins when the fetus can survive without depending on the mother. In other words, breathing on their own without depending on the mother, then it is fully alive(Opinion). I believe viability is when the fetus can survive without the mothers help. (I already answered this question) First of all, late term abortions are generally done only in extreme cases; i.e. the mother is in distress or the fetus will not survive live birth. The great majority of abortions are performed before the first trimester. As for the 150,000 abortions each year, where did hat number come from? where are the facts to back that up? First of all, i don't impose my morality on anybody. I feel sorry for racists because they are ignorant. I don't feel morally superior because of my beliefs. How can i feel morally superior if I am pro-choice. It isn't like pro-lifers who disagree with decide to kill I'm sorry hunt abortion providers. Last part of question 1 is Huh? My reason for being pro-choice is simply this, if abortion was illegal, women would still be attempting to get them as they were before the Roe v. Wade decision. They would be butchered by incompetence who were just in it for the money. Only rich women who could affords it, would be able to get safe procedures done. Question 2: So why stop at infanticide? If we follow your logic, killing should be legal no matter what age a person is. I have already stated that life begins at viability and I don't believe in taking a life after that. But this does bring me to a question of if a parent has guns and allows the kid to play with it, only for hm to accidentally shot and kill himself, then what would you pro-lifers call that? Last part of question 2: Huh? i didn't understand that. Question 3: Copy and paste much? To answer your question, i am not arguing on any kind of consensus. i am simply saying that if a woman does not believe in abortion, then she shouldn't have one. But, If she chooses for whatever reason to end a pregnancy, it should be her choice.