BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social networking is good for students

Social Networking, I believe, can prove to be a distraction to low-performance students. I understand that SN can be used for productive purposes such as group projects and class communication, but it can also be abused and overused. With the growing digital society today, our current generation of students is highly susceptible to its ever-growing influence. Almost anyone in the urban or sub-urban setting in any population dense area has Internet connection and devices that could make use of such i.e. smartphones, PCs, and laptops. Any student has access to this and can be quite handy research materials(Let's not forget Wikipedia and Google) but can also be a way for the student to deviate from his studies. Of course, not all students are the same. There are those who manage their time and know when and when not to use SN without sacrificing precious study time or any time that involves his education for that matter. But we must also consider the ones whose performance is below average. Sure, SN will certainly help him with communicating with his classmates but this will only come to a productive result if he discusses matters involving projects or anything involving his current education. We must consider that low grade students or any other student can abuse SN. They can talk about mundane matters for hours, concerning their lives and their problems. Not minutes, hours. And one more serious matter: Cyberbullying. SN has become the leading medium for Cyberbullying and we all know that bullying has serious effects over the life of a student, especially those who cannot stand up for themselves. The communication brought about by SN is very quick and so will the negative messages come at the same pace. And not only will these messages come almost instantaneously, it can be published to his fellow peers wherein he will be subject to public humiliation both in cyberspace and in the classroom environment. I say that SN should be given time by the student if he is already finished with the work that he has for the day. SN can both amplify and destroy a student's image in his class. Teamwork and peer connection is a crucial element in a student's life. SN must be used moderately.
Social networking is good for students

They have embraced it by the billions! 1.35 billion users are on Facebook. 645,750,000 users are on Twitter and 200 million are on Instagram (Hampton). 72% of all internet users are on social media sites. 90% of 13 to 17 year old have some access to social media (Common Sense Media). And social media is growing dramatically each day. Obviously there is power and benefit to being part of the movement. That is part of the reason why social networking is good for students.
Free Will is Reasonable

I will now respond to Con's arguments. I do accept the PSR. However, I disagree with Con that free will violates the PSR. I have argued that appealing to the fact that people have specific desires and that they simply freely choose among those desires is a satisfying explanation as to why a person makes a choice that they do. Con has argued that this is an inadequate explanation for a choice. Con argues that a choice needs to be determined by prior conditions in order to be adequately explained, but I'm not sure why a choice can't in part be explained by the will's free selection. Con will surely ask, 'but why does the will choose A instead of B?' The answer to this is: that is simply the way Person A chooses to act. The way the person uses their will is what explains the choice. Con and I may disagree on this, but I see that as an adequate explanation. Con argues that if a person freely decides then their choices should be a surprise akin to someone jumping out from behind a couch. However, making a choice is different than someone jumping out from behind a couch because when someone jumps out from behind a couch, a person didn't see it coming. But when my will narrows in on a decision, I am guiding the process, so there is no surprise involved. Can made an argument that free will undermines morality because Con thinks that free will takes away the intention of an action and therefore the purpose behind the action. I would agree that if intention was taken away from all actions, then this would undermine morality. However, I don't think free will is without intention. I think that free will involves intention. When I freely choose to do something, I use my will in an intentional way. I intentionally choose A instead of B, even though I could have chosen B. Con also argued that free will undermines rationality because if beliefs are not entirely determined by prior conditions then the beliefs are arbitrary. In response, I disagree with this interpretation. While beliefs are influenced by prior conditions (such as where a person is born and how they are raised which will affect how they perceive the world) I think a person still narrows in on a belief freely in the same way that they use their will to freely narrow in on a choice of anything else. I don't think this undermines rationality at all. A person still has a set of perceptions etc. that they analyze and then narrow in on. So overall, I think belief in free will is reasonable and justified. I do not see the arguments that Con has presented against free will as presenting strong enough defeaters to undermine the belief that free will is plausible to believe in.
Free Will is Reasonable

In my previous post, I pointed out that free will violates the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) because if a person could have done otherwise in spite of antecedent conditions, then no antecedent conditions are sufficient to explain why the person chose as they did. That means free will choices are spontaneous accidents.Pro’s response seems to be that free will does not violate the PSR. There is still a sufficient reason for why people choose as they do. The sufficient reason, according to Pro, for why people choose as they do is that they choose as they do.Does that strike anybody else as an adequate response to my argument? “I chose A because I chose to choose A.” But raises a further question: why did I choose to choose A? I suppose you might say it’s because I chose to choose to choose A. But then we’ve gotten ourselves into an infinite regress. Ultimately there's no reason for why I chose A.So i don’t think Pro has given us an adequate response. By the law of excluded midldle, one of two things must be true. Either our actions are determined by antecedent conditions or they are not. If they are, then determinism is true, and free will is false. If they are, then free will amounts to having accidents, and the PSR is violated. There doesn’t seem to be any way to escape this dilemma.Pro could have attacked the PSR or qualified it or something, but he didn’t do that. He seems to embrace the PSR. But determinism follows from the PSR. If there is a sufficient reason for everything that happens, then everything that happens is determined by antecedent conditions. Therefore, there is no free will.Pro does not dispute that if our choices are free, then the correct answer to why we acted as we did is, “Partly for some reason, and partly for no reason at all.” Instead of disputing the truth of that consequence of free will, he instead just says it’s not necessary to be so specific in our language. But it still causes a problem because our actions are still literally accidents.Pro thinks the surprise would be taken out of our choices because we would know, in the moment of choice, what we were choosing. Well, of course we would. But with that kind of answer there could never be any surprise about anything all that we might witness. Imagine somebody jumps out from behind a couch to scare me. By Pro’s reasoning, I shouldn’t be at all surprised because I would see him jumping at the very moment that he was jumping. Since there’s no surprise, I shouldn’t be startled in the least.But surprise comes because an event occurs that we did not anticipate at any moment prior. Well, if we are able to act contrary to all prior desires, plans, intensions, and inclinations, then we cannot anticipate our own actions. We cannot know what we are going to do until we are actually in the process of doing it. In that case our actions very well could be surprises.I made two other arguments that Pro did not address. I argued that free will undermines morality, and I also argued that free will undermines rationality. Pro needs to address those arguments. Otherwise they stand, and free will is refuted.
Free Will is Reasonable

To briefly summarize my opponents' rebuttal, it seems that their primary argument is that free will violates the psr. This would entail that there is no true reason to explain why choice A is made as opposed to choice B other than the choice simply being random. So it would seem that the choice is left unexplained. If I have mis-characterized my opponent's argument then they can correct me. In response to this argument, I would say that free choices are explained by the fact that Person A chose choice A. The choice is of course influenced by a variety of factors that narrowed down what the choices 'might' be. For example if Person A grew up in a specific country, inherited certain genetics and traditions etc. then choice A, B, and C might appear fairly attractive to Person A as opposed to the variety of other possible choices out there. In fact some choices would be impossible for Person A given their situation. However, the reason why Person A chooses choice A as opposed to B or C is simply because Person A chooses to use their will in a specific way. That is what free will is. Person A might say 'I chose this because it tastes good or looked interesting etc. ' but this cashes out to meaning 'I used my will for this specific thing because I valued this taste etc. as opposed to all the other options available to me and this is how I chose to exercise my will even though I could have exercised my will otherwise. ' Now of course people don't talk that way because it is overly complicated and unnecessary. Nevertheless it is more plausible to believe that Person A really could have chosen choice B or choice C as opposed to choice A, even if they could not have chosen a variety of other choices. If Person A could have chosen B or C as opposed to A, then Person A has free will in the sense that I defined it. Would Person A be surprised be their decision? Maybe if they were told of their decision 5 minutes prior then they might be surprised because they would not know at that time, but in the moment of their choice there should be no surprise because they are in full control of their will. It is not surprising when you are the one making the decision.
The American Government Shouldn't Tax Fatty Foods

"By taxing fatty food, government can take a step toward its goal to reduce obesity rate in the U.S.. People then will have less incentives to buy fatty food because of the higher price. " Taxing fatty foods will not help the problem. The majority of the people who eat fatty foods such as burgers are the people who are poor. Taxing fatty foods will simply harm them, not turn them away from fatty foods. When a person goes to burger king, the can buy a hamburger for a dollar, while if they went to a grocery store, they could buy some broccoli for the same price. Poor people can't afford to buy all of the vegetables to make a healthy meal. If poor people can barley afford second hand clothing, an apartment and a car, where are they going to get the money to pay for the taxes that would be required to pay for the taxes on fatty foods? " in order to avoid taxation, will produce less fatty food or even they will develop some healthier substitutes. " Places like Burger King will continue to do fine, they would just raise there prices. Poorer people will still turn to Burger King for food. If the government was to raise taxes to a level were vegetables became cheaper, this would cause many people to starve, or become homeless, due to the lack of money. Sources: http://institutefornaturalhealing.com... http://frugivoremag.com...
The American Government Shouldn't Tax Fatty Foods

Fatty food is pollution to people's health what industrial pollution to our environment. The government has already taxed a variety of pollution. By taxing fatty food, government can take a step toward its goal to reduce obesity rate in the U.S.. People then will have less incentives to buy fatty food because of the higher price. Besides, the suppliers and firms than produce fatty food, in order to avoid taxation, will produce less fatty food or even they will develop some healthier substitutes. For the government, such action will increase fiscal income as well as reduce the expenditure for potential diseases that caused by over intake of fat such as obesity and diabetes. For people, their demand of fatty food will be reduced due to the extra payment and they are more likely to lead a healthy lifestyle by staying away from fatty food.
The Leben

The groups on this site are just pointless. Sure it gives someone to work in a group but people are joining everyday. I don't think the website is dying off. Sure debate.org gives everyone different political views but debates are also created so even if you don't agree with a certain side, it challenges you to debate something you aren't used to. We're supposed to understand the other side, not prove on an online debate site which is better. That's for real life encounters. Also, another disadvantage to having groups has to do with fairness in a debate. Imagine you are in a debate with someone who is part of a group, and even though you had the best debate, they still won. Why? Because they're group could vote for them and your opponent ends up having more points than you which isn't fair. See, when you're part of something bigger than yourself, the people around you support you no matter what. So in that case, even if you had a bad debate, they could vote for you unfairly because you have a connection with them. So groups can be unfair in debates. Euthanasia Just because some depression cases aren't treatable, that doesn't mean a lot aren't. You're way more likely to get over depression than an incurable disease. Even if you had a chance to live for an incurable disease, that doesn't mean you should have to live with it. It's really not fair to the person who is suffering. I'm aware that people die a lot but that doesn't mean they have a chance to avoid that. With an incurable disease, you already live with that and that's something you can do something about to end the suffering, You can't do anything about a sudden death. I'm also sorry about your great grandmother but she seems happy. My grandmother wasn't able to do a huge amount of things healthy people can do for 4 years. SHE wasn't happy. Euthanasia is a decision. I'm not asking for your great grandmother to end her life but my grandmother couldn't do anything anymore and there was nothing she could do to fix that. With the animal thing, I'm talking about extreme cases like hitting one in the road and extreme suffering, You wouldn't want to leave it. You want the animal to be happy and out of it's misery. That's sweet that you want to help children like that but euthanasia is for certain people's decision, when they are dying and they can't do anything about it. It ends the suffering more. It's just not fair to the person. People only end the suffering if they feel there's no happiness left for them. They'll be happy if they end the suffering.
The Leben

I"m sorry for bringing up Anti Euthanasia but thank you anyway for accepting to do that. I believe groups on this site are not only bad but also useless. This site is filmed to the brim with trollers. You may ask: why are you using this site then? I didn"t know what I was getting into and I bump into decent people quite a lot. A lot of the groups on this site stand for things that should be considered a joke. Even if they weren"t joking, some of these groups are racist, or sexist, or anti semitic, and things that are never good. Groups on websites with people you don;t know is kind of weird. Since we have internet censorship, there are pros and cons. One of the cons is, you don"t know who you"re actually talking to. It could turn out you"re in a group with 75 year old men who like to troll little kids. you just never know if someone is lying or not so it"s just weird to work with a bunch of people you find and you don"t know anything about them. This website wasn"t meant to meet people and strengthen your debate skills, it was meant to test your debate skills against other people. If you knew everyone on this site in person, that would obviously be another story. But you"re involving in activity that lets you just talk to people who may not have any idea about what they"re talking about. You can easily get trolled by people who join groups on this site and it"s not worth getting involved in. Anti Euthanasia The examples you included don"t work for two reasons. 1. you compared age. A teenager to an old woman 2. One version is treatable, the other may not. Can you guess which one? A teenager has a whole life to live. An old women definitely did live a life and if she chooses to end her life, let her do so. Of course I don"t believe in things like the death penalty but you really have to think about what it would mean to have anti euthanasia. A teenager with depression is treatable. We have therapies and hospitals to help things like depression. That"s why we don"t want them to die. Someone with an incurable disease should have the choice to end their life. I don"t think anyone wants to be remembered as someone who fought to the end but suffered. who would want to spend the rest of their life suffering if you know it"s not curable? It"s just pointless. Living a suffered life is not a well lived life. And I agree, sometimes it"s nice to fight to the very end but is it really worth it? Your loved ones don"t want to see you hurt, they want you to be happy with your decision. My Grandmother died a few months ago but by choice. She was suffering from parkinson [and something else I can"t remember] for 4 years. She was so happy when she made the decision to end the suffering and that made us happy. If you ran over a dog and you knew that it wouldn"t get better, wouldn"t you have ended it"s suffering in some sort of way so it doesn"t die a slow death? It just harms them even more. And that"s exactly the example to fit for what it"s like for a human.
The Leben

the extra area of argument will not be voted on. Groups on this site build community and give people some identity on the site which keeps them here longer, while also engaging older users that may have been getting bored over time. It presents more interesting dynamics as people rally to defend their group, or just watch. It also (For the most part) causes more people to keep their conduct more consistent as it reflects on their group as well as themselves. Euthanasia exists under the idea that certain people’s lives aren’t worth protecting. An old woman dying of cancer and in pain because of the treatments should be shown support and help just as would a depressed teenager. There is perhaps nothing harder to deal with then depression in life, yet even laws have been put in place to keep the suicidal teenager from killing themselves. So why should the old woman be allowed, and perhaps pressured, to die? After all everyone is due to die sometime. In a time of certain death, the person should be made to feel comfortable as possible. But that doesn’t mean cutting of the person’s life prematurely, just helping the person cope with, and enjoy every minute left.
The Leben

WELCOME TO THE LEBEN. For this group, to show yourself as a member, change your profile picture to the one I have.http://www.debate.org......Beliefs of this group are,To uphold the right to lifeProlifeAnti EuthanasiaAnti Death PenaltyBesides these, members are encouraged to have any veiws what so ever, and to debate over even the core beliefs within the group to sharpen skills. Members are required to follow and uphold DDO's rules and terms of use.If one chooses to accept this debate, it will be over the usefulness of any groups on this site, and con will be against any groups existing on this site.You can still join if you agree with at least three core values of four, but under that circumstance you need to challenge me to a debate on the area of disagreement. Benefits to the Leben include I will accept any debate I am challenged to by members even if I disagree with the position, and I am willing to judge debates as I have voting privileges. Once we have at least four members we will start hosting tournaments and will hold elections to determine the leader.
Christian God

Christianity is demanding because it is a worldview with a system of ethics. It starts with a particular view of the world, then it recognizes ethical obligations in every area of life. So, when you ask why most Christians have become a slave to the Bible (or Christianity), it really comes down to actually believing the claims of Christianity and acting on them. If the God of the Bible exists and Christ entered creation, died and rose, then it makes sense to act according to the prescriptions of the Bible. Why do only Christians get into heaven? Well, before I answer that, let me point out that heaven isn't the goal or end of Christianity, the restored earth is. In Christianity, we look forward to the time when Heaven and Earth will be reunited and all things will be made new and put to right. Mankind rebelled against God and became wicked. God offered humans a pardon and way to be restored and made right, through the death and resurrection of his son. So, only those who take the pardon and submit to Christ as king are made right. So, people of other faiths are still in rebellion. It isn't a matter of God looking down, seeing several different faiths and choosing one to the exclusion of others.
Christian God

Why does Christianity have to be so Demanding? Why do most Christian have to become a SLAVE to the Bible or Christianity period? It evens puts out a massage that people of others faiths are not welcome into heaven. That sounds like pure selfishness to the fullest extent. Why would God want all of the glory for himself so that I can only then, get my reward in the afterlife? It's the most selfish thing I have ever heard in my life. It should be right for everyone who believed in the greater good for humanity. Why just Christians?
Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide.

I Pro will contend for the topic. Con will contend against the topic. Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned on the planet Earth. Meat " the flesh of an animal used as food" [1] Dairy "Full Definition of DAIRY 1 : a room, building, or establishment where milk is kept and butter or cheese is made 2 a : the department of farming or of a farm that is concerned with the production of milk, butter, and cheese b : a farm devoted to such production 3 : an establishment for the sale or distribution chiefly of milk and milk products "[2] Eggs " the egg of a bird (especially a chicken) eaten as food"[3] Ban " : to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done : to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something "[4] Thank you for taking the time to read this debate. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...