BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
TV is a bad influence

T.V. is a good influence, good meaning it influences people to do things well. Examples include what my opponent said. "TV has been linked to many disorders in children POINT SUPPORT- The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no TV at all for children under the age of 2, and for older children, one to two hours a day of educational programming at most. STATISTIC: Various studies have linked greater amounts of television viewing to all sorts of problems; among them attention deficit disorder, violent behavior, obesity, and poor performance in school and on standardized tests. Given that kids watch an average of around four hours of TV a day, the risks would seem to be awfully high. Television makes children more violent and aggressive. POINT SUPPORT: According to the National Institute of Mental Health, there is a consensus developing among members of the research community that violence on television does lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch the programs. STATISTIC: VIOLENT IMAGES on television and in computer games can increase aggressive behavior among young children. Researchers have found that violent imagery in the media had a "substantial" short-term effect on children's arousal, thoughts and emotions. Kevin Browne and Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis, from the University of Birmingham, analyzed data from six North American studies, which looked at the effects of media violence on children. They found consistent evidence that young children who watched violent television, films and video games showed more aggressive play and behavior. The study, which is published in The Lancet journal, showed that the effect was "small but significant", and more relevant for boys. Television discourages face-to-face interaction among children or families. POINT SUPPORT: If you are in front of the TV the whole day then how can you be interacting with your family and talking and stimulating your mind? TV makes people completely antisocial and closes them off from their family and society. STATISTIC: Watching too much violence on TV at a young age may lead to antisocial behavior later on. A new study shows preschool boys who watched TV violence were more likely to develop antisocial behavior by ages 7 to 9 than those who watched nonviolent or educational television. But the same effect wasn't seen in girls. Researchers say the results are significant because antisocial and aggressive behavior among young children is associated with violent behavior in older children. In addition, they found that much of what was considered "children's television" programming actually contained a significant amount of violence. " Obviously, it does influence people well, or good. Now my opponent, will say, that is not what I am debating, bad, he did not say negative, he said bad, so it is a good at influencing people.
TV is a bad influence

Thanks for joining this debate, I'll state a couple of my points and save the rest for later, TV has been linked to many disorders in children POINT SUPPORT- The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no TV at all for children under the age of 2, and for older children, one to two hours a day of educational programming at most. STATISTIC: Various studies have linked greater amounts of television viewing to all sorts of problems; among them attention deficit disorder, violent behavior, obesity, and poor performance in school and on standardized tests. Given that kids watch an average of around four hours of TV a day, the risks would seem to be awfully high. Television makes children more violent and aggressive. POINT SUPPORT: According to the National Institute of Mental Health, there is a consensus developing among members of the research community that violence on television does lead to aggressive behavior by children and teenagers who watch the programs. STATISTIC: VIOLENT IMAGES on television and in computer games can increase aggressive behavior among young children. Researchers have found that violent imagery in the media had a "substantial" short-term effect on children's arousal, thoughts and emotions. Kevin Browne and Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis, from the University of Birmingham, analyzed data from six North American studies, which looked at the effects of media violence on children. They found consistent evidence that young children who watched violent television, films and video games showed more aggressive play and behavior. The study, which is published in The Lancet journal, showed that the effect was "small but significant", and more relevant for boys. Television discourages face-to-face interaction among children or families. POINT SUPPORT: If you are in front of the TV the whole day then how can you be interacting with your family and talking and stimulating your mind? TV makes people completely antisocial and closes them off from their family and society. STATISTIC: Watching too much violence on TV at a young age may lead to antisocial behavior later on. A new study shows preschool boys who watched TV violence were more likely to develop antisocial behavior by ages 7 to 9 than those who watched nonviolent or educational television. But the same effect wasn't seen in girls. Researchers say the results are significant because antisocial and aggressive behavior among young children is associated with violent behavior in older children. In addition, they found that much of what was considered "children's television" programming actually contained a significant amount of violence.
Human Cloning

From toast 33 you can expect a lot of this, this delegate went to see his other debates, and saw that on 50 per cent of them, he forfeit each round. .. this is disrespectful and unfair, as when someone makes a debate they except a debate, so i will make my argument as i did in the previos round and wait for a response My opponent obviously doesn't respect or know the rules and acts of Debating, as A. when you post something or a fact, you must have proof "Human cloning needs to happen. we need better humans. this is a fact. Scientists have found that they could genetically modify humans. they could make them shorter to reduce food demand. they could make them smarter faster better stronger. " could you please tell me where the proof is for that. or is that just your opinion being put out as if it were proof. . And could you please tell em why you have a unrelated video about stronger on your argument? . My argument against Cloning: Back in History, cars was an object only the rich and the famous could have and afford, now a days, everyone has one. , what if this happens with Cloning, at first, only the rich can afford them, but after a while, it becomes so common, that tyrants or military dictators could just clone armies. . That would risk, Both civil and international safety. In order to make clones you need to have a lot of women at your disposal, to either give the eggs or produce more and more basing on the demand. last of all, if one were to allow cloning, what would happen to the population crisis, that we, the 7. billion people in the world are suffering of today.
Human Cloning

My opponent obviously doesn't respect or know the rules and acts of Debating, as A. when you post something or a fact, you must have proof "Human cloning needs to happen. we need better humans. this is a fact. Scientists have found that they could genetically modify humans. they could make them shorter to reduce food demand. they could make them smarter faster better stronger. " could you please tell me where the proof is for that. or is that just your opinion being put out as if it were proof. . And could you please tell em why you have a unrelated video about stronger on your argument? . My argument against Cloning: Back in History, cars was an object only the rich and the famous could have and afford, now a days, everyone has one. , what if this happens with Cloning, at first, only the rich can afford them, but after a while, it becomes so common, that tyrants or military dictators could just clone armies. . That would risk, Both civil and international safety. In order to make clones you need to have a lot of women at your disposal, to either give the eggs or produce more and more basing on the demand. last of all, if one were to allow cloning, what would happen to the population crisis, that we, the 7. billion people in the world are suffering of today.
Human Cloning

Human cloning: Human cloning is the creation of a genetically identical copy of a human being (not usually referring monozygotic multiple births), human cell, or human tissue. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Human cloning needs to happen. we need better humans. this is a fact. Scientists have found that they could genetically modify humans. they could make them shorter to reduce food demand. they could make them smarter faster better stronger. (http://www.youtube.com...)
restrictions on alcohol for those who repeatedly abuse others and the related law.

I think there shouldn't because some people do break the law by drinking and they do repeatedly do things to harm others but some people might have metal issues and turn to alcohol as an answer and may help them to get through it and will help them to decide what to do. Though in this case if it gets that far they need to seek medical attention but for them it is a lot harder. I can see where you are coming from but most people do this either because they are down and feeling depressed etc.. But if they are feeling this then they should seek medical attention.
restrictions on alcohol for those who repeatedly abuse others and the related law.

People who abuse alcohol and then subsequently abuse others or traffic laws should have their ability to procure, produce, posses and imbibe alcohol limited. Attacking their livelihood by removing licenses, slapping them with harsh fines and even prison sentences may serve as a deterrent. But once they are under the influence many don"t care about the conquences of their actions. Why not simply remove the privilege to posses or buy alcohol for those who are repeat offenders? This would more directly address the problems We in the state of Iowa in the US already have laws in place requiring ID when purchasing alcohol to keep young people from drinking because we believe it"s not good for them. Why not use the restrictions line of an ID or a icon on the front of the ID to indicate that the person holding this ID is not allowed to purchase alcohol. This could be a limited sentence and in extreme cases could be a life time ban. Ex-cons are not allowed to vote, have fire arms and list of things. Removing access to alcohol for those convicted of an alcohol related crime seems fair and helpful. Well, how would we police this? Much the same way we police teens in regard to under age drinking. We stop them at the counters of stores and officers can request ID of those who are drinking and suspect. No big deal. Granted it will be hard to police these offender who buys sugar and supplies and produces it in their closets. I don"t think we need to bother with those. Too hard. But let"s keep them from buying it in the stores. I deal with alcoholics who are trying to quit on a daily basis. Most wish that there were laws like this on the books. Their lives run wonderfully when they are sober. But walking into a store with easy access to alcohol can so quickly ruin everything they have built and the lives of those around them. Thanks for reading. Just wanting to get an outside view on the topic.
should the war on terrorism continue

My opponent, has yet to say anything. Those in the counter terrorist field have known for years that Iran plays both sides against the middle. In the past, they have supported al-Qaida when they felt their interests have merited it, they have given some sanctuary in Iran, they have allowed transit of Iran, they back a Sunni extremist movement Hamas in Palestine and, as Amos Gilad of the Israeli Ministry of Defense stated, they "continue to support al-Qaida." It does not mean they are in control of al-Qaida or the reverse, but it means what is commons sense: when Sunni extremism and Shiite extremism mesh, namely to fight the United States, Europe and Israel, they will work together and are thus a combined threat.
should the war on terrorism continue

Iran is an immediate national security threat. It is not only a terror state (terrorizing its own populace), but also the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard-Qods Force-Hezbollah axis is active worldwide, maintaining cells in the United States and Western Europe, bombing synagogues in South America, undermining the governments of Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt, and operating to seriously destabilize the government of Yemen, the importance of which was succinctly stated by Jonathan Paris of King's College: "If Yemen is set on fire, the gulf will burn."
Skiing requires more skill and is better than Snowboarding

Whether or not you can stake the claim of being a so called expert is not for me to judge, because honestly you can be an athlete in the Winter Olympics or just someone that plays SSX and I wouldn't know. You say I contradict myself but Golf takes longer to learn then Golf, Hockey, Football and Basketball, so you are telling me that Golf is not only more difficult but better. Though you may have an argument skiing may be tougher what I cannot see is what makes skiing better. Remember your position in this debate is that skiing requires more skill and it is BETTER than snowboarding. If skiing is better, wouldn't it be as popular with the masses here in the US, according to allbuisness.com snowboarding tops the list of fastest growing sports <http://www.allbusiness.com...; or http://boardtheworld.com... With so many links showing popularity in snowboarding whether you can prove skiing to be more difficult it is safe to say that skiing cannot be better because the popularity of snowboarding has surpassed all other sports in regards to growth. I ask all that will be voting that you check your personal preferences at the door and simply look at the fact that how can we honestly say which sport is better. Thank you all and thank you Nate
Skiing requires more skill and is better than Snowboarding

Here are two quotes from rounds one and two of your argument. "I feel your argument is based upon opinion." "With that said I really feel that you have no argument." "I still do not believe that because something takes a few weeks longer to master makes it a better sport." As you can plainly see, you argument totally contradicts itself. In round one you stated that you felt my argument was based on opinion and therefore I had no argument. Then in round two you say that you "do not believe"...last time I checked a belief was an opinion. Am I wrong? No. Furthermore, you have stated you are not an expert in either skiing or snowboarding and therefore you are unable to realize the false knowledge behind some of your logic. One quote in particular comes to mind, "you must be joking if you think that skiing gives more variety of tricks." Skiing does in fact give more variety in tricks. On skis your feet are independent giving you the ability to perform more grabs, crosses, and more flexible varieties of tricks. On a snowboard you are attached to the board with both feet, restricting major pivot points of the body, mainly the knees and hips that give the trick advantage to skiing. Snowboarding, however, is seen as the trick sport because of the culture it has adopted since its beginning. Snowboarding has gained a following among the younger and more reckless and flexible crowds. This has changed in recent years due to advancements in skiing and ski culture, however. Now for the skill aspect of this argument. Balance may seem more natural in skiing compared to snowboarding as a beginner but, in advanced skiing, achieving correct balance is much more difficult. This is especially true when performing rail tricks, jumps, back country skiing, or in racing environments. In snowboarding, balance is easier because muscle memory is built up during the learning period and body movements change very little when progressing. In skiing, technique and body movement is constantly changing making perfect balance more difficult to achieve. The same argument can be applied to the coordination and athleticism aspects of the two sports. Skiing is more difficult to master and therefore requires more skill. The evidence I have provided in the past rounds clearly shows that skiing is better and requires more skill than snowboarding. While I'm sure this could be refuted to no end, your points fail to prove or support your argument. I have enjoyed debating this topic with you and request that when the public is voting on this debating they put all bias aside and vote for the best debate and argument. Thank You, Nate
Skiing requires more skill and is better than Snowboarding

Once again it is nice to have this conversation with you. I still do not believe that because something takes a few weeks longer to master makes it a better sport. It is still apples an oranges Balance comes more natural with skiing because you have your legs side by side at about a shoulders with this is the most stable position one can be in with snowboarding your body is turned in an unnatural way and in the event that you need to gain balance you cannot shift one leg and re-position yourself. Though I do agree that skiing will most often have the advantage of speed, you must be joking if you think that skiing gives more variety of tricks. Look at the Olympics and the X-Games. The only real event that shows dynamic tricks in the ski department is the freestyle competition. The Half pipe and various rail grindings and various obstacle courses are always on display during Olympic events and espn and extreme sports competitions. I will not go as far as to say snowboarding is better it is simply different. This is the same argument that is ongoing between skateboarders and Rollerbladers. True many arguments have opinion but this argument will be decided by preference because there is not much substance to argue thank you my friend can't wait to hear from you.
Skiing requires more skill and is better than Snowboarding

It is agreed that both sports are difficult. Skiing, however, is more difficult than snowboarding given the points stated in round one. More specifically, the learning curve for skiing is steeper. I've seen snowboarders become extremely proficient (an ability to board well in all conditions) in just 10-20 days on the snow. Whereas a skier with the same athletic ability takes on average 25-35 days on the snow to become equally proficient. I do not have any direct statistics to back my facts up other than the my own experience as a ski racing and freestyle coach and a snowboarder who likes to instruct friends for fun. Any debate can be construed as opinion, it is up to the community to decide whether or it is opinion or direct facts that back up a debate. You, however, choose to debate this topic and I hope to see some valid points other than "with that said I really feel that you have no argument. I feel your argument is based upon opinion". To touch a little bit on a comment made by a spectator, "If skiing requires more skill, then how does it make it more of a fun sport than snowboarding if it logically takes longer to learn? " I never did state that snowboarding was more fun than skiing, just that skiing is better than snowboarding. Skiing is better because of the points made in round one, it is more versatile, has more variety in activities, and is more technical. The versatility is seen the ability to access more terrain faster and easier because of skis. The variety is seen in the ability to perform more tricks and more events than in snowboarding. -Most ski tricks have been developed over the years thanks to the help of inline skating, skateboarding, wakeboarding, and snowboarding. Because skiers are on two platforms rather than one, they can add more variety to a snowboarding trick than a snowboarder can. -You've never seen a snowboarder compete in upright aerials and you very rarely see snowboarders compete in moguls. I look forward to reading your next round.
Skiing requires more skill and is better than Snowboarding

I'm going to keep this opening statement simple and leave it open to argument and interpretation. Feel free to debate freestyle, racing, recreational, backcountry, or any aspect of the two sports. Skiing requires more skill than snowboarding. -More athleticism, balance, and coordination is required to control skis compared to snowboarding. -The learning curve for skiing is steeper than snowboarding, helping to confirm the facts from point one. Skiing is better than snowboarding. -Skiing allows more versatility on the snow than snowboarding. -Skiing allows more variety on the snow than snowboarding. -For those technically inclined, skiing offers more technical structure than snowboarding. I want this debate to be fun and friendly so, I don't want hardcore responses or extreme flaming of either sport. I've been skiing for 17 years, 8 of those competitively in both downhill racing and freestyle. At the same time I snowboarded exclusively for 2 years. I love both sports and continue to support and engage in them both.