BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Media Negatively Affecting our Youth

It is so amazing to me as to how many times that I am forced to reiterate that this whole debate has nothing to do with how we protect our children from the media, but is about how negatively the media affects our children. You continuously go on to state how the idea of a filtration system sounds on the verge of ludicrous to you, when you state that education is key. When educating a child, that child has the ability to pick up everything and anything whether or not it is coming from the educator, in this case you wanting it to be the parent. Therefore if anything, a filtration system for a HOME TELEVISION would be a smart idea in order to protect our children from picking up information that may be detrimental to their health in their futures. Initially, before you had skewed my argument, I was stating that the internet was negatively affecting the health of our children, I had stated that a good way to start in order to keep our children safe would be to have a sort of filtration system to keep them protected. But this was not what my argument was about, my argument was stating that since the arise of the media many studies have shown that suicide rates, drug abuse rates, and eating disorders have increased dramatically. According to ap.psychiatryonline.org it stated that since 1998 dieting had increased from 0 to 69%, and all of those women that were interviewed stated that they were aiming to earn bodies such as the actresses on shows such as Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place. Along with this around twenty five years ago it was recorded that that the average woman was only 8% heavier than the average model, today that number as skyrocketed up to 28%. All of these women striving to achieve the near impossible are putting their lives and health in danger in that they force themselves to do dangerous things such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia in order to achieve the "perfect" body, many times these actions ending in very negative ways. Also, the media advertising movies in which glamorizing the drug world attracts many of our naiive youth to act as copycats in that everything they see done, they do. With movies such as The Pineapple Express and The Hangover, the characters in these movies use drugs in order to have a "good" time and to enjoy themselves a little bit more. Children seeing this say "oh wow they must have more fun high, so maybe I will too." The glamorizing of cannabis and other drugs makes children think that the drug is not that bad because they are being used to have fun, if they were really that bad why would they show it on television. Seeing this and believing that it is not that bad for one's health the children usually partake in this innocent need to have fun, and eventually this all ends in addiction to much harder drugs in the need to have a much stronger, and sometimes much more dangerous high. Is this how we want to see our children grow up?
Media Negatively Affecting our Youth

So what can you do as you have stated that a education is not enough. You basically stated that it not just the media but experiences through media can affect a child. So what do you as a parent propose, a filtration system you pay for your family? Lets face it one cannot protect their children from everything. When you walk downtown a street and ads everywhere promoting a certain product. I never said that one should educate their child in front or from of a television, I said parents should educate about topics the media displays.
Media Negatively Affecting our Youth

As I will post time and time and time again, the argument is not for or against a filtration system it is about how negatively the media affects society and its youth. The filtration system will not be a mandatory system if it was instilled by parents, it would not affect American society as a whole, nor will it affect the American television system as a whole. In order to protect our children the filtration system would be only accessible to parents who feel the need to protect their children from the media. I was not sure by what you meant with "public something" so I figured you meant public television. Though public television is free does not mean parents will not be able to protect their children from these negative advertisements. You said that the public stations will be losing revenue if they were forced to instill a filtration system, but nobody is saying that this filtration system will be mandatory, nobody said that this filtration system is mean to be instilled by the television companies, nobody said that this filtration system was going to be something added in by law. Initially when I had mentioned a filtration system I was referring to something such as a parental control in which certain channels are blocked off of a family television and are not accessible unless a password is put in. This way the family can still access these shows and channels, but they would not have to worry about their children as much for the channels that they are being protected from are password protected. Along with this, you are continuously saying that the best way to keep our children safe is through education. Though I do agree that education is key in helping in the development of a child, education can only do so much. Though we may believe that we as parents or as society's elders are the main educators, children are sponges and everything they see and hear is taken in and is learned. This is where the problem with the television and the media in general becomes a problem. With the media and all completely accessible by the children they are able to learn much more than we may want for our children. Our children may earn an education from their parents and friends, but they will also learn information from the television and from magazines. Not all of this information is necessarily "good" information. Your quote stated that if we educate the children from a young age, they will have the ability to potentially grow into what they have learned, this then is stating if a child is continuously educated from the television and is continuously exposed to the "glamorous" life of drugs and body image issues then it seems to me that, as you mentioned, they will pick up this information and live up to it and with it into the future. Do we really want our children to become drug addicts? No, but the television has just as heavy an arm in education as we as parents and elders do.
Media Negatively Affecting our Youth

I wasn't talking about cable television I was talking about public something completely different and free. Without these advertisement the television companies will lose money because it does not all go their wallet. It goes to production companies their employees the networks employees. Face it without advertisement America's economy would be in jeopardy. It does not only pay for employees but allows us to view a product buy it in which that money goes back into the economy. Believe me I am in favor of a system for children but it can't be as extreme to a filtration system if you care for children that much password protect everything. View channels that you think is "suitable for children", but education is key you must educate the public from an early age. Tell them is wrong and that is right but according to Thomas Hobbes view on human nature, "Man is not by nature a social animal, society could not exist except by the power of the state." If you do not start by educating the country at an early age they will continue to act that way.
Media Negatively Affecting our Youth

As I have continuously stated time and time again, this whole argument does not have to do with a filtration system it is surrounding the fact that the media has had the ability to negatively affect our youth. The youth, have access to all sorts of this media, have been influenced in many self destructive ways to fit the "cookie cutter" aspect of what the media is telling them is "normal". The filtration system is not what this debate is about, so I am dumbfounded as to why you are continuously crawling back to that argument. But if you insist, I will show you where you are wrong with your "filtration failure" idea. Okay so you stated that if anything, once instilled the filtration system will be much more flawed than I seem to understand; your standing argument is the loss of money for all of these companies because of the filtering system. But, here my friend you are wrong. Currently, in America there are tons of different filtration systems in which parents are able to monitor what their children have access to and what their children are watching. But this filtration system does not necessarily mean that the companies will be losing money. You stated that if people wanted access to these shows they would probably end up having to pay for them in able for the shows to be view-able. Then would it not be true that if anything the television companies would be making much more money if the public had to buy the shows individually rather than the customers buying the cable package in order to view all shows at a relatively low rate? I also do not understand how you say television shows and movies will lose money if there is a lack of advertisements, if anything they will be saving money for they do not have to waste it on advertisements; but a filtration system is not going to stop a company from producing commercials and advertisements, it is simply going to protect children of a certain age to have access to them. As I was stating before this filtration system would not be affecting the public as a whole it would simply be accessible to parents as a sort of protection for their children, in order to keep them safe from the media's negative advertising. The filtration will not be there for those who do not need to worry about those who may be highly affected. I think I see that you thought that when I even mentioned the idea of a filtration system you were thinking of what the government had done to the public with PIPA. But PIPA is completely different in that it was protecting companies and individual people of loss of revenue because of illegal distribution of scholarly documents, music, movies, etc. The filtration system that I was referring to has nothing in common with this for it will not have to take such large action in which it results in the loss of money for companies. The filtration system, though not my argument, is much more beneficial to the well being of children; it seems to me that you care much more about money than children.
Media Negatively Affecting our Youth

The problem is that a filtration system will fail. Movie companies, advertisament companies and local television networks they will fight a filtration system because lets face it they will bring up the argument they are losing money. They will bring up that the public would have to start paying to view their shows. Commercials pay for their air time to the networks which in turn allows us to view our programs. Without ads people will not be able to view shows and movies because of a filtration system. Today media is everywhere from your smartphone to your tablet and PC its almost physically impossible to incorporate a filtration system as we have seen with PIPA the public would be heavily against it.
Media Negatively Affecting our Youth

As I had stated before, I believe the best way to combat the growing problems surrounding media exposure towards our children is education. I stated that filtering would probably not be a great way to solving the issue for to completely filter would be just as negative as allowing our children to take part in all of these dangerous and harmful activities. I believe that if we allow for our children to see what is being portrayed in the media and allow them to understand and learn that everything that they are being shown is unrealistic and very harmful, I then believe they will be able to earn a broader and much more insightful understanding. The whole argument that I was standing for and debating was that the media is negatively affecting our youth, the debate was not what we should do, it was whether or not the media was playing a large role in teenage rebellion and skewed views on themselves and within society. Since the rise of the media, one prime and very prominent example that is visible mostly amongst females though still possible with males is the idea that "thin is in". The media basically etching the idea that to be attractive and to be beautiful to the opposite sex or to get attention you must be beautiful and to be beautiful you must be the one with the best body. According to Media Influence and Body Image in 8-11-year-old Boys and Girls: A Preliminary Report on the Multidimensional Media Influence Scale by Dale L. Cusumano and J. Kevin Thompson, a study was completed in which 75 boys and 107 girls were tested in order to see how much of a correlation the medial pressures played along with the correlation of eating disorders. In the test there were three categories which were defined as awareness, pressure, and internalization. Once tested it showed that the girls had much higher scores on the three scales rather than the boys. Along with this the study found that the girls, though they were still so young, were very aware of the media messages and had also felt the medial pressures as well, all of this correlating with body issue. Now as you stated earlier, that if anything we should not be the ones filtering what our children watch, but simply educate them, I would agree in some sense that education is key, but when it comes to children as you as the ages of eight up on through eleven, I believe that some sort of filtration system is needed. You can only teach a child so much so that they understand in a sense, but when so young they can only grasp a portion of the larger picture. When constantly exposed to media stating that to be beautiful and well liked you must look a certain way, the child will act as a copy cat in which they will act exactly as what they see and what they are told is beautiful. Even if a parent were to tell them that being different is beautiful, the explanation of what the media is showing would be a very grey area for the child to understand.
Media Negatively Affecting our Youth

I agree that this is partly the cause of affecting our youth, but we should not just filter the media entirely. Yes, our children view these programs and are like I should do this because this reality star is rich and beautiful. The reason they believe this is because of lack of parental support; yeah okay media has some partial responsibility, but it's the parent's responsibility to help explain and prepare their children for media exposure. According to the article, Exploring the role society and the media play in the development of an Eating Disorder and the Media Influence on Eating Disorders, "part of the societal problems are a result of lack of education". One can't blame a student who killed other students in a school shooting because he saw a program; the parents should be actively involved in their child's lives from hobbies, sports, to social relationships. A parent is there for guidance and without a parent we as humans become lost in knowing what is right or what is wrong.
Media Negatively Affecting our Youth

Since the rise of the media in America now thousands upon thousands of people are able to view much more than possible in past American societies. With television being a leader in television shows and a diverse number of advertisements along with magazines following close behind, teenagers, and recently, those even younger are being pounded continuously throughout the day of what they need to do in order to fit within the current society's norm. Not only are we no longer allow to filter what our children watch and keep them safe from the darker aspects of the outside world, we also have to pay closer attention to what our children are being exposed to in order to keep them from doing things that may end up affecting their lives in very negative ways. Currently the media is continuously attacking our children with their malicious and degrading advertisements and television shows telling our youth to look, act, and even pretend to be a certain way to be more generally accepted, to be "normal". Not only are children being told that they must be a certain way to be accepted, but the media is also practically telling these children that if they are not acting, doing, or saying these things to be cool then they are not "cool", then that these children are not "normal". The thought of not being normal and not having the ability to fit in cause many of our children to take drastic means and measures to fit in. Many of these include the results of an increase in body image issues, eating disorders, drug abuse, and even an increase in suicide rates. With all of these issues on the rise and the media growing at ridiculous rates we as a community are becoming less and less able to help our children. With the inability and a weaker hand to help keep our children safe and filter them from the societal monsters and pressures, we must find a way to get a hold on the media and our children in that they do not have to think twice before trying to attempt in doing something stupid simply to fit in and get attention from their peers. Instead of allowing the media to feed our children all of this negative attention we as a community must take a different measure in fighting back against the media in which we flood it with positive influences. Not only are we trying to make sure our children and youth do not fall into the hands of drugs and sex from all of the negative role models portraying the "glamorous" Hollywood scene, it is also our obligation to make sure that our children learn to love themselves the way they are and accept that the beauty in themselves is what makes them different. Though filtering may be thought of as the ideal way to protect our children from these negative ideas, in actuality if anything we should allow our children to see these things and let them understand that in order to be perfect and beautiful they do not need any of these things that the media is telling them they need, yet they need to understand why they do not need them.
Bob Saget has a strong desire for toasters.

First, I would like to repost my opponents arguments. "to embed videos don't just put the url. O, boy. Last of all, my opponent has not presented that I have not presented a picture of a waffle maker. That, my friend, is not a REDiculously close relative to the toaster, and therefore bobalobadindong (Bob Saget) doesn't relate them to each other. I put children in microwaves. And dishwashers. Contention STUPID: Y'all don't need to prove that "one of those appliances is a toaster," it is possible to make random assumptions based on assumptions inspired by assumptions born from assumptions derived from assumptions created from assumptions.I HATE EVERYONE VOTING ON THIS DEBATE. Contention Whatever: The balloon shows love for toasters, no matter how closely it resembles Bob Saget. SERIOUSLY! Contention Sarcastic Remark: The following image shows An AWESOME toaster oven, not toasters' closest relative: http://selectsmart.com...... Who do you think could not have done this? BOB SAGET Of not COURSE! Contention: Here's where the youtube video doesnt come in. The silly hooligan jumping into a wall is not a young Bob Saget, who, seen arguing with his compadre, just discovered that he was not going to be baptized into toasterdome, and in his incest of rage, jumped into the wall. Clearly, he desires those toasters. Contention (kinda): You've answered all of my numerous arguments in this ENTIRE DEBATE! Clearly, you are at an epic win for words at my bad linguistic stylings. http://imagecache2.allposters.com....... Contention: Don't cross Bob Saget. He'll leave you with every where to run. I HAS BaD SPEELinG Contention: https://www.relayhealth.com...... These doctors are becoming concerned that you have been taking your SHUT UP mediation. Consider speaking with them. I am stupid. Contention: It looks like your case http://thepilver.files.wordpress.com...... has just been asked nicely. iiiiiiiiiiiHHHHHHHHHHHH Don't Vote NEG, my kind sirs and madames, and make sure to realize the awesomeness of my opponents ways. NO Thank you for your time and DON'T have a good day." As you can see, my opponent is bad. Thank you.
Bob Saget has a strong desire for toasters.

to embed videos just put the url. O, girl. First of all, my opponent has presented that I have presented a picture of a waffle maker. That, my friend, is a REDiculously close relative to the toaster, and therefore bobalobadindong (Bob Saget) relates them to each other. Contention Something: Y'all needs to prove that "one of those appliances is a toaster," it is impossible to make random assumptions based on assumptions inspired by assumptions born from assumptions derived from assumptions created from assumptions. Contention Whatever: The balloon shows no love for toasters, no matter how closely it resembles Bob Saget. SERIOUSLY! Contention Sarcastic Remark: The following image shows a destroyed toaster oven, toasters' closest relative: http://selectsmart.com... Who do you think could have done this? BOB SAGET O COURSE! Contention: Here's where the youtube video comes in. http://www.youtube.com... The silly hooligan jumping into a wall is a young Bob Saget, who, seen arguing with his compadre, just discovered that he was going to be baptized into toasterdome, and in his incest of rage, jumped into the wall. Clearly, he doesn't desire those toasters. Contention (kinda): You've only answered 2 of my numerous arguments in this ENTIRE DEBATE! Clearly, you are at a loss for words at my linguistic stylings. http://imagecache2.allposters.com.... Contention: Don't cross Bob Saget. He'll leave you with nowhere to run. http://www.all4humor.com... Contention: https://www.relayhealth.com... These doctors are becoming concerned that you haven't been taking your SHUT UP mediation. Consider speaking with them. Contention: It looks like your case http://thepilver.files.wordpress.com... has just been told. AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Vote NEG, my kind sirs and madames, and make sure to realize the error of my opponents ways. Thank you for your time and give me back my money you thief.
Bob Saget has a strong desire for toasters.

O, boy. First of all, my opponent has presented a picture of a so-called "toaster". That, my friend, is a waffle maker. Contention 1- According to the book Everybody Poops, "a two-hump camel makes a two-hump poop". This refers to Bob Saget, a camel, having appliances that perfectly fit his needs. One of those appliances is a toaster. Contention 4- toasters are awesome, as represented in this video which may not work since I do not know how to embed youtube videos. If it doesn't work, blame my opponent, as he is a meanie pants who is trying to sabotage me. If you would look at the green balloon at the 20 second mark, it is clearly resembles Bob Saget. Since the ballon loves toasters, Bob Saget then loves toasters. http://www.youtube.com...; Thank you for your time and money.
Bob Saget has a strong desire for toasters.

O, boy. My opponent says that bob is God, but in the next breath he says that the sagman (Bob Saget) is the devil. You contradicted yourself. My opponent also questions why Bob Saget wouldn't like toasters. Her, let me repost this: http://farm1.static.flickr.com... YIKES! Here we can see Bob-o Saget descending from the clouds: http://www.briscoebarnyard.com... does he REALLY need (or desire, for that matter) a toaster? Nuh-uh! Bob Saget once hosted America's Funniest Home Videos. Were they funny? No. Were his comments funny? NO! Yet it still became a popular TV show. Why? Because of the not-toaster aura that the show gave off, caused by Bob. Oh, Bob. Finally, if Bob desires toasters, fascism. Thank you, and good night.