BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should ncaa wrestling be a video game

I thank tbow44 for the opportunity to debate this topic. Since tbow44 has taken the Pro side of this resolution, it is up to him to affirm the resolution, or else Con wins. Firstly, I am going to establish a reason for ‘should’: P1) Businesses should want to make profits P2) E.A. Sports is a business C) Therefore, E.A. Sports should want to make profits This argument is also implied within Pro’s work, hence the reference to ‘profit’. Therefore, this argument should be a given. The methods in which to reach profits have yet to be affirmed as accurate, by Pro. Let’s have a look: Counter-arguments CA1) “There are thousands of wrestlers who would play” There are many problems with this premise. Firstly, Pro offers no evidence to suggest that this is the case. Secondly, just because there is interest in wrestling, it does not mean that there would be interest in a wrestling game. Thirdly, even if there was interest in such a game, it does not necessarily mean that people will: 1) pay for the game or 2) play the game. Pro must give evidence to address the above conditions, in order to meet his BoP. CA2) “Thousands of wrestlers playing the game would give E.A. Sports plenty of revenue” Game development is costly. In 2010, the average price of producing a video game cost $20 million, which rose from over $5 million in 2006 [1]. Although Pro has yet to affirm this, let’s take his example of ‘thousands’ of wrestlers buying this game. Let’s be generous and say that ‘thousands’ meant 9,000. If the game were to cost $100, 9,000x100 = 900,000. This figure is not even close to the average game cost of $20 million (of 2010, and trends show that this number should be bigger). Therefore, based on this, E.A. sports should NOT produce such a game. CA3) “The game would bring many people into the sport of wrestling I am failing to see how this would be the case. My opponent has essentially argued that: 1) E.A. Sports creates a video game 2) Therefore, people will be brought into the sport This appears to be a non-sequitur (logical fallacy) [2], in which the conclusion does not follow from the previous argument. I await to see Pro fulfil his BoP. References [1] Behrmann M, Noyons M, Johnstone B, MacQueen D, Robertson E, Palm T and Point J (2012). "State of the Art of the European Mobile Games Industry". [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Abortion is Wrong

Acually, during the time when humans where evolving, it was normal for them to have sex during their teen and young adult years. Science has proven it. Same thing today. Its natural for humans to have sex during that time in their life. The problem is during thoese teen years, teens are normally in school and living with their parents and young adults are in collage and not ready for children yet. Abotion isnt selfish. The mother isn't ready for a child and why should she have it if she doesn't want it? Its not fair for her to have to spend years of her life caring for the child when she could be in school, collage, or working. Also, most women who can't get abortions can afford taking care of children either. It would be unfair for the child to not be taken care of properly. Also the child wouldn't have love either because the mother never wanted it in the first place. Yes, i can see there are plenty of girls having children and women who would want thoes children but even though adoption is a good idea the mother is still going to have to go through pregnancy. Being pregnant changes the body in so many ways. Girls arent ready for it and shouldn't have to be put through it. Also its not safe for girls to have children. When humans where starting to evolve it was safe for younger women to have children but not anymore. Stats show that most complications are with young mothers. As said in my previous argument, the fetus isn't living. Its technically a parasite because it depends on the mother for everything. It doesn't even have a heart or brain, which are qualities of living humans. For you next argument I'd like you to answer these questions Since your defonition of anortion is murder, does that mean misscarriges are involuntary manslaughter? From www.sceptial-science.com Also, wouldn't be putting a mother in a position to take care of a child when she isn't ready for it also punishment?
Abortion is Wrong

First off the women shouldn't open her legs if she isn't ready to care for a child, having sexual intercourse is a big step in life as well, if you think you are mature enough to have sex well then you should be mature enough to nurture a baby. Abortion is a selfish act, yes you are killing off a fetus but you may have killed off a child who could've grown up to cure cancer, or change the world but we wouldn't know that because the immature women didn't take on the responsibility to care for the baby. There are numerous of women who can't have children but yet there are plenty of girls aborting due to them not wanting to have to take time away from their lives to care for a baby that was a product of their sexual intercourse. Life begins in the fetus abortion is the act of taking human life. No civilized society allows one human to intentionally harm or kill another human without punishment, and abortion is no different than killing any other human
Abortion is Wrong

Women should have the choice of abortion no matter what. It is the woman's body and the govornment shouldn't tell her what she can and can't do. If your against abortion you shouldn't worry if other people are doing it. Its their choice, not yours. Abortion isnt murder. According to dictionary.com abortion is the "removal of the embryo or fetus in order to end pregnancy".it doesn't say anything about murder. Also, the fetus isn't a child. Its a group of cells and tissue. Did i also mention it doesn't even have a brain? It can also be considered a parasite since it gets all its nutrients and vitals from the host. Parasites dont always harm the host either. A fetus doesn't have any human like characteristic as i explained earlier. A woman should be able to have an abortion if she can't take care of the baby. She shouldn't have to take care of it if she doesn't want too. Having children is a big step in life. Mentally and financially. No woman should have to do that until shes ready. Even if a woman was going to give the child up for adoption she might not want to spend months being pregnant. Pregnancy takes its toll on the body and changes it forever. She might also have to work to earn money. No woman should have to be pregnant if they dont want too. My sources Dictionary.com Health class Biology class
Abortion is Wrong

Women should not have the choice of abortion unless the women was raped, incest, or for medical reasons. Abortion should be categorized as murder from part of the mother. If the mother came through with abortion she should have the obligation to serve time behind bars due to her taking a child's life away. Same goes for the doctor which performed the abortion. No one should have the ability to kill a baby just because they couldn't take the responsibility of caring for it there is other alternatives for the child to live abortion isn't the only option
Resolved: The Father Should Not Have Say In an Abortion

ResolutionThe Father Should Not Have Say In an Abortion.As PRO, I will be affirming this resolution by arguing that the decision should rest entirely on the mother.As CON, you will attempt to negate the resolution by arguing that the father should have equal and/or greater say in the decision.Burden Of ProofShared BoP.DefinitionsPretty straight forward. All terms requiring clarification once the debate has started will be defined using the merriam-webster online dictionary definition that best fits the context of this debate [1]. If there is a dispute on which definition best fits the context of this debate, the final arbitration is reserved for myself.FrameworkThe arguments made in this debate will be under the assumption that the pregnancy in question is under typical circumstances. That is, a planned pregnancy where one party later wants an abortion to take place and the other party objects. To keep things simple, we will not be looking at bizarre scenarios such as cases of one party tricking the other into getting pregnant or cases where some sort of contract was signed prior to conception explicitly giving the father equal or final say over the option of abortion.This debate will not be relative to any particular country's laws as this debate is meant to be normative (what OUGHT to be the case), not positive (what IS the case). However, for the purposes of this debate it will be assumed that abortion is legal.Rules1. All standard DDO rules apply 2. First round is for acceptance3. Users with an ELO score under 2,800 need not apply 4. Any questions on this debate should be asked in the comments section prior to acceptanceThis debate is impossible to accept at this time. If you're interested, apply in the comments section. This will not be a first-come first-serve method of acceptance. The higher your ELO ranking, the more likely you are to be accepted as the contender. EDITJust to clarify, by "no say" I'm saying the father should have no practical say. This debate is not about if the father has, for example, 30% say or something like that. <50% say = no say, all else being equal.1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Students should be paddled if they misbehave during school

My contentions: 1. Paddling is unpleasant and kids will finally abort foolish behaviors to avoid the punishment. 2. This punishment is NOT MORALLY ACCEPTABLE, however if the child was a literal animal, this method WOULD BE EFFECTIVE. 3. Therefore, it is up to the voters to decide if, in the context of the question, the MORAL respect for kids outweighs the obvious brutal effectiveness of PADDLING. Most likely, in this society, you will not accept the idea of physical punishment. So, vote however you want. And don't try this out at home! :)
Students should be paddled if they misbehave during school

My opponent brought up that the question still remains Should paddling be used to decrease misbehavior. She talks about operant conditioning and how it will likely do the trick. This is still not Moral and will not be accepted. As stated before my contentions. 1. Kids go through enough trouble at home and school. 2. Certainly more effective ways of punishment. 3. Kids striking back. Physical punishment let alone is worse in homes. We should not bring it into our classrooms at all. Kids would be put down and there behavior would likely get worse if anything physical was to happen to them.
Students should be paddled if they misbehave during school

As acknowledged by my opponent, paddling is not widely morally accepted and may put more stress on already-pressured students. However, the question remains, *should* it be used to decrease misbehavior? As it stands, operant conditioning with a paddle WILL likely do the trick, as it is much more severe than spending an afternoon in detention. However, its severity is what leads most to reason that it is unnecessary. It is up to the voters to decide, their personal preference, if a physical punishment would be the ideal choice for eliminating miscreant behavior. Thank you!
Students should be paddled if they misbehave during school

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for taking this debate. I will address this is certainly not an easy win for me and wasn't put here for that reason. Paddling a student is certainly not Moral or acceptable for any means. School surely is a place for learing and education, and not meant to be played with. Certain people seem to think that bringing back paddling will be acceptable and will keep kids in check so to say. My views i say this will just make things and situations worse on everyone. Their is certainly other means for punishment than this cruel and unusual way of putting kids down. My opponent brings up the talk of simpe operant conditioning. This may be an awnser to misbehaving in school. It might decrease misbehavior and it might not. Even if this would decrease behavior it is certainly not acceptable. This brings me to my contentions/points. First off Kids go through enough trouble at home and do not need more at school. I will throw a example out there. The high school where i attend there is a issue that has been going on for a while. Our school brings kids from Downtown or "East End" and puts them in our school. Some of these kids want to learn but most of them do not. I happen to know some of the kids that misbehave frequently that live in one of those two areas. They do not really have an example to look up to. They are involved in gang activity, have abusive parents, and there enviroment isnt at all good. If kids are getting abused or beat at there homes then why would paddling help with misbehavior at schools. It would certainly bring out the worse in some kids and maybe even cause kids to strike back at there paddler/teacher. Second There is more ways of effective punishment. Suspension and Detention helps and can help with misbehaving problems. There will always be kids that dont want to learn and their will always be kids that want to learn. That however is another debate and we are not discussing effective strategies for those kids. Third kids will strike back. Involved in gang activity kids will certainly strike back. They will feel as if they are being put down and in the gang world that is not acceptable. This will cause problems for so much more people. What do you do then? Striking a teacher is certainly misbehavior so do you keep paddling them? I would like to thank my opponent again for accepting this debate. I look forward to the next round of this debate.
Students should be paddled if they misbehave during school

I accept this challenge, only because the subject of child-paddling is likely not to be a popular one to take a Pro- position on. (( Note: This is not my view. I agree that students should NOT be paddled. However, I suppose it is debatable and will make my points from a debate-only standpoint )). I hope this topic was not established as an "easy win" for my opposition, as the "con" view is overwhelmingly popular, and this is why I have accepted the challenge. * The issue at hand is whether "Students should be paddled if they misbehave during school". It is an obvious and simple fact that this would fall under the category of "Child abuse" or "Cruel & unusual", thereby excluding it from consideration from many individuals in our modern society in the United States (this is as far as my views can speak for). Thus, paddling a student as punishment for misbehaving is not MORALLY permissible. That is, people will feel guilty for it, or others would consider the responsible parties to be abusive and despicable. However, the question here is not if student-paddling is tasteful. It is whether they should be paddled or not in response to misbehavior. According to simple operant conditioning, it is apparent that an individual (student in this case) will be subject to a consistent response (here, paddling) to a consistently static action (here, misbehavior in school). If the goal of the administration is to stop the students from misbehaving, as this debate title implies, then simple operant conditioning would hold true. The consequence would regularly occur in response to misbehavior, and the behavior in question would be more likely to decrease as a result of the negative sensations and experiences invoked. Thus, the answer is that if "misbehavior" is an unwanted action as the title of the debate implies, then operant conditioning (by way of paddle or any other unpleasant consequence) is a solution. It may not be socially acceptable, but as far as eliminating the offensive behavior as the title suggests with the word "MISbehave" (i.e. unpleasant behavior), operant conditioning "should" be employed to reduce it. This view however, is not tasteful or accepted into modern society, because this form of punishment (physical) closely resembles or is child abuse. One will note that such operant conditioning is employed, however, in other situations (with positive or negative feedback) and is quite successful.
Movies based on Books should follow the plot line completely.

Throughout this debate, PRO has argued that movies ought to be made a certain way, but the only real argument brought to bear is that this is the way the fans allegedly want it to be. In the previous two rounds, I have demonstrated that movie producers should not be under any such compulsion, for purposes of artistic creativity, profit, or even making the story more accessible to fans. Since PRO has chosen not to advance any further argument's this round, I will close simply by stating that PRO has not bet the burden held by the initial claim of the debate.
Movies based on Books should follow the plot line completely.

I will address them presently. Writing a Different Book PRO has asserted that changing the entire plot of the story is equivalent to writing another book. If this is the case, the producers of a movie have not changed a book at all, but instead have written an entirely new story, which invalidates PRO’s complaint. Same Title PRO has asserted that readers/moviegoers would expect that if the name is shared then it should be “somewhat similar. ” This is just not the case. To illustrate, there are numerous movies that share names, but have little or nothing similar about their story [1]. Disappointing Fans PRO claims that making a movie that differs from the book disappoints fans. While I admit that this is often the case, so what? So long as the movie is successful, why must movie producers stay true to the source material? Making Money In the previous round, I asserted that producers are doing their job when their movies make money. PRO attempts to contradict me by claiming that “People [producers, I presume] do indeed care about what the fans think…” I concede that this is sometimes the case. However, PRO fails to realize what I actually wrote. I wrote that so long as the movie makes money, it is OK. If the producers make a bad movie, for whatever reason (poor writing, poor effects, poor promotion, etc. ), they will not be doing their job, and then I would agree that they should have done something different. Artistic Creativity PRO tries to get around my argument about stifling creativity by simply hiring a different director. This misses the entire point. Whoever is making the film would be making someone else’s film. Staying True Throughout this debate, PRO has focused on the Percy Jackson movies, complaining that they were not true to their source material. This seems to anger PRO, and he feels it should not have been done. However, PRO has provided no real reason that movies should be required to be true to their source material. PRO’s entire argument boils down to angering the fans, which, as was addressed earlier, doesn’t matter unless it affects profits. In which case, it is the profits that matter, not the fans. I look forward to PRO’s closing thoughts.
Movies based on Books should follow the plot line completely.

Honestly I never thought anyone would actually accept it. Yes it is true that the authors are paid to have it put on the screen as a movie, BUT, to have the entire plot changed would equal writing a different book. Also, I do acknowledge that movies are art, yet if a movie and book share the same title, the reader and watcher would expect it to be somewhat similar, yet, in some movies, for example Percy Jackson and The Lighting Thief, the plot line is changed. The main goal of the movie was to attain 3 magical pearls and then travel to the underworld, while, even though the pearls do exist in the book, they were mentioned in less than 1 whole page of the book, and were freely given to Percy, the protagonist, by a naiad. This greatly disappointed the fans, and many considers the Percy Jackson movies as an embarrassment of the fandom and rejects movie fans. Also, CON said "if changing the story a bit will bring in more money, then they are doing their job. " I would like to contradict that. People do indeed care about what the fans think, because they are the ones who spent their money to go to the movie. According to www. hypable. com, there will no longer be a third movie in the Percy Jackson franchise because it received too much hate from the book fans, who were the main viewers, to be able to continue. This proves that the thoughts of fans do matter. Source: . http://www.hypable.com... Lastly, I believe that if you don't want to "stifle the creativity of [an] artist by forcing them to express another artist's vision," simply choose another director who would make less changes. The book already has a plot, creating a new plot would simply cause an uproar which could have been easily prevents. Complaints about how movies "messed up" books are flying all over the internet. For example, "Lily's eyes are not green! " -Harry Potter; "Where is Madge? " -Hunger Games; "Edward's eye didn't get stabbed with a butterknife! " -Divergent. Stay true to the book could prevent all that. Thank you.