BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Education can be a boundary for imagination.

Perhaps, you haven't really understood the topic. I am trying to prove that how the lack of education can affect one's imagination. Demoting imagination is totally out of the question. By boundary, I mean that without proper education, one will lack a creative mind. " Knowing that 9+10=19 did not stop the 21 kid joke going viral." What if you had no knowledge of addition? What if you did not know numbers? Would such kind of a person still be able to understand it as a joke? Obviously not. " Knowledge and imagination may be 2 different things but knowledge definitely does not limit imagination. It is, in fact, your willpower that limits it. Even if knowledge doesn't promote imagination, it definitely doesn't demote it either and I believe my examples have proven that. " I believe you have really confused yourself with the words 'limit' and 'demote'. Limit means that one's imagination can get affected by the amount of knowledge one has attained in the present context. However, demote is to discourage or reduce one's imagination in the present context. " The knowledge today may not be the knowledge tomorrow. In fact, tomorrow's knowledge was made by imagination itself. Imagination revives knowledge. Knowledge does not limit imagination." It is true that imagination gives rise to knowledge. In fact, imagination is the cause of this modern world we live in. But that does not necessarily mean that knowledge does not limit imagination. What if no one had any knowledge about networking. Then the Internet wouldn't technically exist. "Overall, I have told you that knowledge doesn't really affect imagination and that without knowledge there still may be imagination. With that, good luck and I hand the debate to my opponent." I too believe that without knowledge there still may be imagination. But how much imagination would exist? Imagine you are born in a blank world. There is nothing there. No plants, no animals, no humans, no land, no sky...There are only two things that exist, never-ending nothingness and you. Do you think you could attain any kind of knowledge from such kind of a world? No. Which definitely, in this situation, implies 'no imagination'. Apply the same thought to the present world, when you have less knowledge, you have less imagination. With this, I hand the argument to be continued by my opponent.
Education can be a boundary for imagination.

I really loved the motion. Thank you for creating this debate. Now lets hop to it shall we? stance : Education is not a boundary for imagination burden of proof : Pro: Education demotes imagination by 100% (Because boundaries are limits of an area. Not a factor) Con: Education is not a boundary for imagination even if it doesn't promote it Points: Thank you for your points, now I would like to return a few more examples and a few points myself. Education, knowing aliens do not exist (within our grasp anyway) did not stop me from imagining that I was David slaying Goliath in my own style and different outcomes. Knowing that 9+10=19 did not stop the 21 kid joke going viral. Knowledge and imagination may be 2 different things but knowledge definitely does not limit imagination. It is, in fact, your willpower that limits it. Even if knowledge doesn't promote imagination, it definitely doesn't demote it either and I believe my examples have proven that. The knowledge today may not be the knowledge tommorow. In fact, tommorow's knowledge was made by imagination itself. Imagination revives knowledge. Knowledge does not limit imagination. Rebuttals : Well from what I understand that you are saying, it seems to me as though you are saying that knowledge promotes imagination which, from what I understand, is not supporting your BOP nor stance. However, if I was mistaken, another possibility is that you were saying without knowledge, there will be no imagination. This isn't completely true plus, you example about internet (and judging from the era we live in now, seriously?) is only one while humanity has proved my point over a thousand times. A few million years ago, humanity's only piece of knowledge was survival and grunting. Almost completely no knowledge at all and yet... look where we are. Past geniuses thinking of ways to communicate. Imagination. After that, hyroglyphics then languages. Without knowledge, there wouldn't necessarily be no imagination. It is the reason why you have that gadget in your hand, on your table, wherever. Conclusion: Overall, I have told you that knowledge doesn't really affect imagination and that without knowledge there still may be imagination. With that, good luck and I hand the debate to my opponent.
Prostitution Should be Legalized

Definitions [4] Child: a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority. Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action; a person who is tricked or duped. Rape: unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim. Sexual Assault: any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Pimp: a man who controls prostitutes and arranges clients for them, taking part of their earnings in return. Prostitution should not be legal for 3 main reasons: it promotes children to be trafficked, most of the prostitutes are victims, and whether or not it's legal, it's still a dangerous job. The average age of a girl entering prostitution is 12-14 years old, although some can be as young as nine [1]. What's worse is that at least 100,000 children are used as prostitutes each year as part of the $9.8 billion U.S, sex trafficking industry [2]. If prostitution were to be legalized, America would be legalizing something women and girls want to escape from. Studies have shown that as much as 95% of prostituted women want out of prostitution but can't leave due to circumstances like having no other job skills, needing to be able to provide food and shelter for themselves and possibly family, and being under the control of their pimp [1]. Most of these women are victimized by how 65%-95% of those in prostitution were sexually assaulted as children [1]. They are also considered victimized by how pimps target those who already have a history of abuse or are runaways [2]. "I had started having sex at ten years old; I knew how to please men, even if it killed me. But at night when I came home and I showered I scrubbed and lathered to try and get the streets off me. I hated being touched by tricks. Each time I did a call I felt as if I was being raped again. Working in call I never knew what my day would bring. My best friend was raped in the room next to me and I never heard a sound. The trick muffled her cries and walked out like nothing was wrong. Every day I would try to drown out the thought that I might be next. My mantra was get your money and get them out, but I was dying inside." [3] Many prostitutes fight for their lives everyday. They suffer from rape, physical assault (client or pimp), and any other type of abuse that harms them physically and emotionally. Legalizing prostitution would be like legalizing another crime instead of taking action. They need help from prostitution, not support for it. Sources: [1]- http://www.ksufreedomalliance.org... [2]- http://thinkprogress.org... [3]-http://www.prostitutionresearch.com... [4]- Google Definitions
Prostitution Should be Legalized

Prostitution is an old job that employs many educated and uneducated people alike[2]. Yes, it is a job, by definition[4]. If prostitution were legal, more men and women would be able to have jobs they enjoyed[5]. Unfortunately, the sex-trade is unregulated. Prostitutes are often physically abused by their bosses[3]. If the profession were to be regulated, or at least recognized and offered legal protection from the government, they would be able to get help to end the abusive relationship, and hopefully never have a boss who would abuse in the first place, without getting themselves in trouble. Prostitution is legally considered a crime, which is why many women who want to quit their jobs because of this aforementioned abuse are afraid to do so[3]. However, it should not be a crime. The thought that it is illegal to systematically charge for something some people randomly give out for free is ridiculous. It should not hurt anyone, as all participating parties have consented. In fact, it is estimated that if prostitution were legalized in the United States, the rape rate would decrease by roughly 25% for a decrease of approximately 25,000 rapes per year. While the spread of disease and other detriments are possible in the practice of prostitution, criminalization is a sure way of exacerbating rather than addressing such effects. We saw this quite clearly in the time of alcohol prohibition in this country[1]. If properly overseen, no one would be stolen from or financially, physically, or mentally damaged in any other way in prostitution. Things can"t get any better until people in this business can get equal rights. Sources: [1] http://www.history.com...... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... [3] http://www.womenslaw.org...... [4] (From dictionary.com) a piece of work, especially a specific task done as part of the routine of one's occupation or for an agreed price [5] "We chose sex work after we did a lot of things we couldn't stand. Sex work is better. For me, sex work isn't my first choice of paying work. It just happens to be the best alternative available. It's better than being president of someone else's corporation. It's better than being a secretary. It is the most honest work I know of." -Veronica Monet, Prostitute and Author, in Gauntlet Magazine, 1994 [6] http://prostitution.procon.org......
Prostitution Should be Legalized

I am starting this debate again because last time my opponent forfeited every turn. Please comment first if you are willing to make this a legitimate debate. Prostitution should be legalized, but be carefully regulated. Laws should protect prostitutes from abuse from their bosses and clients. All intercourse must be protected with condoms, and prostitutes must not have any STDs, STIs, or STVs. Rates must be regulated, and lack of paying will be considered rape in a court. Definitions (Dictionary. com): Prostitute: a man or woman who engages in sexual acts for money. Legal: appointed, established, or authorized by law; deriving authority from law. Sex: sexual activity; interactions intended to result in the sexual pleasure of at least one of the involved parties. Regulate: to control or direct by a rule, principle, or method. Rules 1. No trolling or semantics 2. Forfeiture permitted, however if either party forfeits, they must explain why in the comments 3. Be respectful of others' opinions 4. Arguments and rebuttals are to be based on research, not opinion alone 5. If rules or format are broken, the respective party must forfeit the next round Format (organized by rounds): 1. Rules, definitions, format, introduction to topic, and acceptance 2. Arguments and opening statements; no rebuttals 3. Arguments and rebuttals 4.
FUN DEBATE: Comedies are better than horrors

Horror generally has better stories and plot driven action. They can also offer a feeling of exhilaration, and they are often tied together with the mystery genre, which can promote discussion of the movie, which can improve one's critical thinking. In the end, they are different genres, so they're impossible to compare, but I'd much rather watch a movie that deeply affects me or makes me think, rather than a comedy I would soon forget. It is also a pleasant experience cuddling with someone who is scared. Yes, comedies are great, but a horror movie promotes cuddling. You go in for a good scare and cuddle up to the person with you, and if you are on a date, as I would hope you are, it can be a great ice-breaker. There is nothing like a good scare to get your blood pumping! Also Horror movies are scary so for adults like horror movies better.
FUN DEBATE: Comedies are better than horrors

I would like to open up this debate with my first argument in favor of comedy over horror by talking about the audience versatility in comedies. Movies are a form of entertainment that are nearly always enjoyed in groups of friends or family so it is important that a good movie be something that everyone can enjoy. A comedy movie can be great for people of all ages to enjoy together. While there are certainly people who do enjoy horror movies and the feelings of suspense and fear presented by those, they are in the minority when compared to people who enjoy a good laugh and an easy going comedy movie. Personally, I do enjoy a good scary movie and will typically watch them as they come out, however I often have troubles finding people to see them with me. This argument is based on personal experience and so may not seem very credible but lets look at this logically. Younger children have extremely active imaginations that they cannot control as well as a more matured person and so they are often more easily frightened on an emotional level and cannot enjoy horror movies. This makes horrors a poor choice for family movie night. Comedies on the other hand create feelings of euphoria and happiness that people of all ages can relate to and enjoy together Because Comedies can be watched with friends and family of all ages, they are a better genre of movie than horrors.
Was my opinion question "sexist"

Actually, those studies could be inaccurate due to the fact that masturbation is more of a private thing for both boys and girls. It's not true that boys masturbate more than girls and it's not true that girls masturbate more than boys either. Most teenagers, both boys and girls, masturbate because they're curious about sex and want to know what it feels like. Masturbation is the self-stimulation of the genitals. Both men and women have genitals and since masturbation is the self-stimulation of the genitals, which can involve many erogenous zones, both men and women can become addicted to masturbation, addicted to sex, and have a high sex drive. Gender is completely irrelevant to sexual addiction and masturbation because both boys and girls can become sex addicts and masturbate very often. http://www.webmd.com... One thing that you should know is that not all studies are credible or accurate. Take this supposed "study": https://www.psychologytoday.com... This guy claims that men have a higher sex drive than women but that is a very bogus and biased statement. No gender has a higher sex drive than the other. It really depends on the individual, not their gender. If you read that entire article, you will know that the guy uses sexist stereotypes as evidence to back up his biased and inadequate claims. Because of this, this "study" is biased against men and women, making it a non-credible/non-reliable source. It depends on the individual, not their gender. You can't speak for all men and you can't speak for all women. Your question pretty much implied that all men are horny, which isn't true at all. It also implied that women are sex objects, which isn't true either. Because of this, your opinion question was sexist due to the fact that it implied several sexist stereotypes.
Was my opinion question "sexist"

Studies show that the number of masturbaition between male to female are no where close the number of males that masturbait to females are almost doubled between 14-18 and since my opinion question were about teens that is what we will be focusing on also studies show that 46 % of male teens masturbait at least twice a week while that same number of girls said they only did it once or twice a year this is not a hard question boys masturbait more than girls and you claimed I was sexist for not puting male and female in the question but all studies show more males do it and do it more often http://www.sexualityandu.ca... https://consumer.healthday.com...
there definitely is a god

I will also assume that you are talking about the Biblical god. Also,you have the BoP as you are making the claim. Exist:to have actual being; beEvidence:that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief;proof. Believe:to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability ofsomething, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so. Faith:belief that is not based on proof
History Revisited #003: Americans did not decisvely win the American Revolution

I apologize but I will not be able to finish this debate. I have had migraines on and off this week for some strange reason starting Tuesday. I struggled to post the last two rounds. I started typing a few hours ago and just deleted it all because I could not concentrate. When I started the debate I wasn't sick but I have started getting more sick, my headache is too bothersome, and I definitely won't be able to finish. Again my apologies.
Objective morality exists

For this debate both my opponent and I will assume that god does not exist. We will be debating on whether or not objective morality does exist in a world without god. Definition Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts[1] Morality: the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct or a system of ideas that fall into those same categories[2] Rules (A)No semantical arguments, or arguments based completely on wordplay or definitions. (B)Drops will be counted as concessions. (C)Forfeiting of any round will constitute a loss of all 7 points. I will ask that my opponent bring their arguments in the first round. I will not bring my own arguments, but will try and refute the arguments my opponent brings. My opponent will win this debate in the event that I am unable to refute his arguments, I will win in the event that I am able to. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com...... [2]http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org......
The laws of logic are self-evident.

Because we've had an issue regarding definitions in the past, I'd like to take this opportunity to address any relevant definitions or clarifications for this debate. The dictionary defines logic as the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. In philosophy, logic is used to construct proofs which give us reliable confirmation of the truth of the proven proposition. We derive truthful conclusions from truthful premises. The system of classical logic relies on laws that are self-evident. A self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. I stand in affirmation of the resolution: The laws of logic are self-evident. If my opponent accepts these definitions, he must simply respond to confirm and I will begin this debate in the second round. Thanks again, and good luck!
"Enhanced interrogation" and other "techniques" are ok in cases of national security

The argument I wish to present is a matter of rights. Both the rights of the detained as well as the rights of those that may get hurt. While I do understand your position, I think the only real point that truly must be established is the legality, or why it should be considered legal. All people have rights. All people have the right to life, to liberty, and lastly "to property" according to John Locke, "pursuit of happiness" according to the US Declaration of Independence, and "security of person" as stated in the Declaration of Human Rights. In addition the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 5 "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The problem here lies in the rights of two groups, those that are subject to the interrogation and those that the former are attempting to harm. While it has been established that no one should be subject to torture, we also have a fundamental duty to protect those that cannot protect themselves, either due to inability or lack of knowledge of the danger. The problem arises, and as I see it, you can"t protect the rights of both groups. If one party to the event is in a position where they know of or have put into place the means of killing of injuring other people and those people are not involved in any conflict with the person threatening them, (i.e. they are non-combatants who, through no action of their own, gained participation in the conflict, whereas combatants are those that chose to or volunteered into a position where they may become involved in a dangerous situation like signing up to be a cop or soldier) then the person threatening the life of others therefore has shown disregard for the rights of others. If they are so loose to disregard rights of others then they should have no expectations for the respecting of their own rights. Response to consequences. Therefore, if someone is to threaten the lives of those that have no participation in armed conflict with another person or group and through no action of their own, became part of it, then the person attacking them is therefore relinquishing their own rights otherwise it would be hypocritical of them to request respect of their rights.
"Enhanced interrogation" and other "techniques" are ok in cases of national security

"Enhanced interrogation and other techniques" I take to be a euphemism for torture. This is affirmed up by the proposition that "any means necessary" should be used in matters of national security. "ok" must mean permissible in all senses. If torture is permissible in some sense but not legally permissible, then it cannot be said to be permissible in the overall sense. So I hope my opponent agrees that he must establish that torture is morally,legally, and pragmatically permissible, otherwise it cannot be said to be permissible. My position is that torture is illegal, immoral, and impractical. I look forward to the debate.
"Enhanced interrogation" and other "techniques" are ok in cases of national security

For this debate I am establishing a set of rules to be followed. While this is a very controversial topic and may involve discussions on ethics, questioning morality and other issues, please refrain from personal attacks both in arguments and comments. This is meant to be an intellectual forum to exchange ideas and opinions and beliefs, not attack one another. Round 1 - Accepting the debate and a brief synopsis of your position and reasons for, limit to a few sentence. Round 2 - Establishing a factual basis for your argument. Round 3-4 - Refuting and responding to opponent's argument and evidence. Round 5 - Closing remarks and gesture of thanks and respect to opponent. Position Synopsis: Enhanced interrogation, as it is often called, is a technique of extracting information from individuals through use of force, induced psychological and physical stress, and other techniques often considered morally wrong. However, in cases of national security, when there are innocent civilians and other people who have not engaged in threats of violence against an offender, I feel there is nothing wrong with using any and all means necessary to retrieve that information. I think it should be done only in cases that the perpetrator is confirmed to be involved in the potential threat but if so then all means should be allowed.