BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Congress ought to place a ban on food advertisments that target children under the age of twelve.

So why don't I begin this debate by first refuting my opponent's arguments before clarifying my own. First, their argument concerning the parent's responsibility. Now, in a perfect, idealistic society. I would agree. Really, I would. But the fact of the matter is that we don't live in a perfect society, and leaving this matter up to the parents is both foolish and naive. While I do agree that parents ought to have more responsibility for educating their children on such matters, like I mentioned before, it's not happening. Just the fact that our obesity rates are rising (as I mentioned in my previous argument) clearly proves that leaving it up to them isn't working. The logic that claims that banning ads targeted towards young kids would be making parents "assume that they would not have to worry about explaining to their kid why they shouldn't eat something..." is flimsy at best. Moving on to the next point, the wide interpretation/waste of money. Now, before making my point, I'd like to mention that yes, this statement is fairly broad, but it is also fairly hypothetical. To be honest, our congress really won't get around to passing a bill like this- it really could take decades. Obviously this is a hypothetical question, and to answer your situation of the fourteen year old- the debate is: Congress ought to place a ban on food advertisements that target children under the age of twelve. The fourteen year old, here, would be legally admissible. You also talk about a waste of money, but the money taxpayers are currently paying to obesity-related health problems (diabetes, etc.) is a hefty sum. It's been estimated that obesity accounts for roughly 21% ($190 billion) of our medical spending each year. And with the rise in obesity, this number will also rise. [1] Finally, the better alternatives argument. Yes, there are plenty of alternatives. And yes, some people are partaking in them. But when we examine the facts, it will become obvious that they aren't working. Obesity is rising, public outrage is not. Like I mentioned previously, it's naive to assume everything will magically fix itself. And remember- kids are our future, and at an early age they are especially susceptible to outside influence. It's our duty to nip this problem in the bud to ensure a happier, healthier future for everyone. Clearly we need a change, and this change comes in the form of banning food advertisements specifically targeted towards children aged 12 or younger. [1] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
Prayer in Schools

After a couple of exciting rounds here, I will provide my Summary : Pro has raised that Prayer has been hindered in school, and that freedom to express ones religious beliefs are in repute. These have not been proved, all counter arguments raised have been left hanging, and nothing further than apparently personal opinion, and a single website have been the basis of this debate. My opposition has raised that a Person who is religious is morally superior - I beg to differ. Most 'Moral' people fulfill their obligations, and arrive to their deadlines within time - the forfeiture of the last few rounds show that this is not the case, no matter how religious you are. Of course I have also missed rounds, however each time I have, I have let my opposition know the reason why, and usually 2-3 apologies to try and compensate my oppositions waste of time.
Prayer in Schools

To begin with, I would like to clarify some of your claims. Where have you received information stating that prayer has been banned in all schools? Public/state schools have no power or credence to withhold a student from praying or practicing their religious beliefs, as long as prior warning has been provided (Evidence of this is Muslim cultures are permitted to practice fasting that is held during Ramadan, Which includes multiple times where they must pray to Mecca for salvation and to 'purify' their souls). Private schools fall within the constraints of a Private business, where the owner's discretion is applicable, as each parent must sign a waiver to agree to such terms before their child can 'participate' with the School - If this is the cause of this debate being raised, I feel the debate topic could effectively be changed to "Why cannot we pray within my Business" - as effectively, a Private school is a business - their product is knowledge. The only evidence I can see that any actions that have affected ones practice of religion is by declaring schools cannot be "publicly calling upon the name of the Lord at the beginning of each school day." - This was due to the equality of religion, as per obvious demographics (Can cite this figure if you require, but it is known, and cannot be bothered chasing it down for the first round) - Christianity is one of the dominating religions in the United States - In the name of equality, other religions did not have to be subjected with 'another' religions prayers, simply by merit of the majority practicing that practice. Citation : http://www.forerunner.com... Depending upon your response, please can you answer the following? "If kids would be able to pray more freely in schools they would be reminded of what they believe in, and start acting better." - Can you please reference evidence or cite a credible source that proves that increased prayers can equate to a morally standing human being, otherwise this information will not be regarded or debated. Please advise your citation, as this seems to be more of an opinion than an actual debate topic. I am happy to proceed with this, however I would like to confirm the 'scope' with you before we proceed. At present there is not much to debate off, as it is a 'He said - She said' opening statement from yourself - I ask again to clarify so I can effectively debate this topic with you. Thank you and eagerly awaiting your reply.
Prayer in Schools

"To be a Christian without prayer is no more possible than to be alieve without breathing" (Marin Luther King). Prayer should be allowed into schools. Prayer is voluntary to all students, and does not disturb others learning. Just as no teacher or student forces another to participate in a school sport, play, or club, no one forces another to pray. Also, America was founded on the idea of freedom of religion, and held many religious beliefs. Religion was a part of everyday life, and the choice cannot be taken away from the younger generations. Lastly, prayer does improve others morals. If kids would be able to pray more freely in schools they would be reminded of what they believe in, and start acting better. This is why prayer should be allowed more freely into any school.
American Production did a bad job on the American version of Cardcaptors.

I say that the American production did a good job because they were able to get the Anime to the United States (11). Some great Anime never even made it to the United States, such as various Gundam series that were considered good (1). For the romance between Sakura and Syaoran, that is a good idea because the show was intended for children, not for teens or adults. So their romance would be inappropriate for young children (2). Plus Card Captor Sakura in Japan was intended for female audiences and toning down the romances would make an all gender audiences in America (3). Li Syaoran has a large fan base in the US (4) and (5), so the American Production went ahead by putting Li Syaoran as a co-leading character than being a supporting character in the Japanese Series. The critics did not know what they are doing and many of the fans knows only little about how difficult the production on Anime to the US can be, so their comments and views are invalid and unreliable. In their views about Syaoran and Sakura romance being cut, the show as intended for young children and not young teens or young adults (6)(7)(8), so their words and comments has no meaning of how bad was the American Production on Cardcaptors was. As many fans seems to believe that Syaoran and Sakura are a good couple based on your You Tube videos and ‘fanfiction' source, it is all a moot as some fans believe in the "Naruto" series that Naruto and Ino are together (9) or Sasuke and Hinata are together (10) and I don't see any hints on the actual series and check my first two you tube videos to check it out. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... So unless you got some more solid evidence that Sakura and Syaoran is a couple (not to a lot of fans) in the debate, your views Sakura and Syaoran are a couple are inefficient. (1)http://www.mahq.net.... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org.... (3)http://www.mahq.net... (4)http://www.facebook.com... (5)http://www.fanfiction.net... (6)http://www.commonsensemedia.org... (7)http://rara79.netfirms.com... (8)http://www.worldlingo.com... (9)http://www.fanfiction.net... (10)http://www.fanfiction.net... (11)http://www.imdb.com...
Technology should be completely banned.

My opponent shows the typical ignorance for the situation we face.Digital clocks - like any other electronic device, are toxic E-waste [1], but most of it ends up in landfills, poisoning our ecosystem [2].The "solution" my opponent proposes is naive. Allowing people cellphones means we still need factories to produce those, which means their plastic components, their circuitry, their displays etc. All those are DIFFERENT factories, so we wouldn't really cut down on the pollution one bit. All these factories need water (microchip wafers need to be rinsed with ultra-pure-water for 30-50 times) which cannot be used twice for technical reasons and is hard to filter in a way that it can be released into the environment without harm [3].We need power-plants to feed those factories and the phones. We need transmitter masts, satellites, webservers in order to operate phones and have data to access.On Google alone "the 300 million searches we do a day take 150 000 liters" of water [4].If we retain cellphones in use, those alone make up a little under 1% of all E-waste [5]. But the industry behind them is huge and rests on the shoulders of our water-wasting electricity infrastructure.By adding still more E-waste every day, how are we supposed to ever clean up what we already have? Cellphones alone make up 20000 tons of E-waste every year.We conquered this planet without electricity. So we have proof we can live without it and still prevail. We have no conclusive evidence that we will survive the poisoning of our eco-system through E-waste. We need to ban technology and eliminate it gradually. Utterly.[1]: http://www.brighthub.com...[2]: http://www.abc.net.au...[3]: http://infohouse.p2ric.org...[4]: http://spectrum.ieee.org...[5]: http://www.electronicstakeback.com...
Technology should be completely banned.

REBUTTALWe started poisoning Earth, beginning with mining only 200 years ago. Before that, we lived "in times of prosperity and peace".Electronics are fairly new to the game of destroying our planet , but have peaked in the last 30 years, with the mass production of computers in the 1980's. In this time we have turned the tables around:Electronic waste is generated by the tenth of millions of tons each year, and crude recycling sets free toxic pollutants.The results are disastrous. Not only do the pollutants like heavy metals poison plantlife and wildlife, they lead to damage to the human DNA, resulting in cancer and the risk of hereditary diseases and mutation.We can estimate that we're wasting drinking water by insane amount sufficient to supply a minimum of 6.500.000.000 . That's 9.3 times more people than we have.Banning technology is by far way too extreme, no-one would have ANY access to technology even digital clocks. Digital clocks certainly do not cause much waste or poison plantlife and wildlife. Limiting technology would be much better on cutting down pollution and providing some advanced things. For example, we could all be limited to, say, a mobile phone. That would cut down on pollution but still provide useful advance technology.CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, limiting but not banning technology is the way to go. Not only do we cut down on pollution, we still have the communication, and digital advantages that banning technology does not. With just a mobile phone we can plan, organise, share, research and receive information. We can also call anyone at any time. This is the advantages of limiting but not banning technologyThank you.
Technology should be completely banned.

The first humans emerged around 1.6 million years ago, with the appearance of "homo erectus" who spread "over two continents" [1]. We achieved domination over the world by the "Iron Age", which was roughly 5000 years ago [3].Mankind thrived then and there were plenty of resources for everybody, and richer wildlife and plantlife than today, due to our most modern "advances" [4]. We started poisoning Earth, beginning with mining only 200 years ago [3]. Before that, we lived "in times of prosperity and peace" [3].Electronics are fairly new to the game of destroying our planet [5], but have peaked in the last 30 years, with the mass production of computers in the 1980's. In this time we have turned the tables around:Electronic waste is generated by the tenth of millions of tons each year, and crude recycling sets free toxic pollutants [6].The results are disastrous. Not only do the pollutants like heavy metals poison plantlife and wildlife, they lead to damage to the human DNA, resulting in cancer and the risk of hereditary diseases and mutation [6].We can estimate that we're wasting drinking water by insane amount sufficient to supply a minimum of 6.500.000.000 [7][8]. That's 9.3 times more people than we have.If law contains as one of its aims the human survival, we must act quickly and put a stop to this. This can only be done by banning electronic and digital devices. Only if no one has access to it, there will be a durable and fair solution. [1]: http://humanorigins.si.edu...[2]: http://www.historytoday.com...[3]: http://www.seafriends.org.nz...[4]: http://wwf.panda.org...[5]: http://inventors.about.com...[6]: https://www.iop.org...[7]: http://www.dosomething.org...[8]: http://everylittledrop.com.au...
Technology should be completely banned.

So, why should technology not be banned? Technology provides us with much faster communication and research. (1) We can simply turn on the computer and send messages, or call someone. If technology was banned, none of this would be possible. We would have to go the old fashioned slow communication - by letter. How would you feel withdrawing from your online presence and sending letters which take days to arrive? This is just how important technology is - and the consequences from banning it. (1) . http://www.ask.com...Thank you
Technology should be completely banned.

I accept on the condition that we use the following definition of "law", in accordance with H.L.A. Hart's "The Concept Of Law", "one of the most influential works in modern legal philosophy" [1] and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.My definition:"Law" is a set of rules made by the government of a town, state, country, etc., the aims of which contain "the human survival" [2].[1]: http://books.google.de...page xv[2]: same place, page xxxv
Late term abortion is wrong even when the life of the mother is at risk.

You are correct I am not Dr. House, a fictional character played by Hugh Laurie, I am quite real and I perform all of my own stunts. I my not have made it clear in the scenario above that the mother's life is quite viable. Every effort should be made in order to keep her safe. My argument is that there is no point in terminating the child's life simplify because the mother's life is in danger by carrying the child to full term. There are other methods that can be employed other than C-section to remove the child
Late term abortion is wrong even when the life of the mother is at risk.

A late term abortion is defined as an abortion that occurs after the 20th week of gestation. Therefore if the mother is conscious during the first 20 weeks she should be well aware of her condition and should have by this point accepted her destiny to become a mother (otherwise she would have abort the child in the earlier stages). Now she faces an unexpected ailment which causes the continuation of the pregnancy to threaten her life. Both lives are of equal value but only one has the power to decide their fate. In this case the only moral decision that could be made is to give both the baby and the mother a fighting chance for survival. The baby should be delivered via C-section and given the medical care needed to offer the best chance for survival (the quality of medical care will always very based on the current conditions and my in fact may include no care if none is available). This I believe is the only moral decision since we now know that a person is viable at this point (Research Jill Stanek, born at 22 weeks). So to choose to terminate the life a possibly viable human is wrong indeed.
Late term abortion is wrong even when the life of the mother is at risk.

The health of the mother is the concern of the mother. The doctor has no say. The government has no say. Perhaps the element of rape has not been taken into consideration. I applaud whoever has the courage to look the parasitic result of the mothers rape in the eyes and say the child "I love you." Whoever has the courage to have half of that evil man living with her. Whoever has the courage to be reminded of a horrible incedent every day of her life when she looks at the one thing that she thought would ever matter to her. If a mother IS NOT at risk of death, then of course she has every right to abort the pregnancy. If the mother IS at risk of death, as before, she has every right to abort the pregnancy. It is between a woman and her self-concious, not between anyone else.
No underwear is better than wearing underwear

First, let me start by stating that I do not wear underwear. I don't believe it is necessary to wear underwear. Not wearing underwear is better than wearing underwear because it is more comfortable and it makes you feel more free. It is also better for your health to not wear underwear because air can flow freely when you are not wearing underwear. Your also less likely to contract an infection because your parts can breathe freely. For women, not wearing underwear completely eliminates that dreaded VPL! How can you have a VPL if your not wearing panties? Not wearing underwear, for the most part is sexy. And last but certainly not least, not wearing underwear is more comfortable than wearing underwear. You don't have to deal with wedgies and there is simply nothing more comfortable than wearing leggings without underwear if your a girl! For men, not wearing underwear can promote healthier sperm because wearing underwear for long periods of time can create heat that can ruin sperm quality. I may not be a man but I think not wearing underwear is more comfortable for men as well! Sources: https://www.bustle.com... http://elitedaily.com... http://www.mostinside.com...
Music Battle

My next piece of music is an improvisational jazz piano piece by Hiromi Uehara. Mentored by Ahmad Jamal in the US, she proceeded to release several critically aclaimed albums and to corroborate with some of the biggest names in jazz piano, from Chick Corea to Oscar Peterson. She is know for virtuosic control, innovative fusion of various style, expressive performances, and for complete immersion in her art, continuously composing and tapping out rhythyms whenever a piano is not available.This piece is the title track from her album 'Place to Be', which has been described by critics as 'post-pop' due to it's reflective, yet giddy tones and general deviation from her typical fusion genre. The album consists of solo piano performances which put Hiromi's virtuosity and vulnerability on display.This particular performance was made after the death of Oscar Peterson, an associate of hers which whom she had collaborated before in the path, and is an exceptionally emotional one which nonetheless puts the pianist's impressive technique on display. It begins in a slow, cerebral, structured manner before falling into pure, upbeat improvisation.http://www.youtube.com...
Music Battle

I would like to present here what might, in style, be the very antithesis to my opponent's song - Brahms's Fourth Symphony, which is no less sullen or tragic than Yume wa Yoru Hiraku. . http://www.youtube.com...Although, like most pieces of this genre, lacking in a programmatic theme, there is no listener who can, upon hearing the entirety of the symphony, leave untouched. Brahms, noted for his tremendous admiration of the musical giant before him, Ludwig van Beethoven, nevertheless puts behind in this symphony an unwritten rule evident in the works of his idol - that tragic symphonies end in joy. The Symphony, the epitome of tragedy in the romantic symphony canon, has rightfully earned its place as the pinnacle of Brahms' composition career. Not one to beat around the bush, Brahms gets down to business with the first moments of the first movement, sure to be recognisable to any classical fan. The ensuing movement, with a more tranquil second theme and great fanfare heard throughout, is filled with polyphonic complexities that are sure to dazzle even the most casual of listeners. With each development of the two themes, Brahms showcases his remarkable ability to conjure up the most vast of emotions and moods from simple melodic themes, soon to be further demonstrated in the final movement. We then hear a slow introduction to what may be the most delicate movement. A remarkably beautiful andante, Brahms takes us on a trip to the most picturesque landscapes known to humankind, when our dreams are abruptly shattered by loud fanfaric blasts - a painful reminder of the tragedy permeating throughout the piece - followed by a resumption of peace and tranquility. The transition from turbulence to tranquility and back repeats, and the movement ends in a bittersweet diminuendo. We start the third movement, a major movement, with a mood so joyous, triumphant even, that it sounds, at the beginning, to be the polar opposite of our second movement. Intertwined with another theme, at once playful, magical and fantastic, this movement serves to ease the listener with a period of delight, before propelling the piece into the final movement. A set of variations on a theme by Bach, the final movement, the last symphonic movement penned by Brahms, explores the boundaries of thematic development, through thirty-two variations on a single, eight-bar motif from a Bach chaconne. Each unique in its own right, the variations combine to tell a tragic tale, one of stormy turbulence, of intense fear, and of bitter regret. As we ride on the roller-coaster ride that takes us through the variations, the mastery and perfection of Brahms' craft are evident. With its unmistakenly lush Brahmsian textures and the unfathomable emotional depth, the symphony is the magnum opus of Brahm's oeuvre, and is destined to astound listeners and inspire musicians for generations to come.