BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children should not watch television

Absolutely non-sense ... I am sorry to use this word ... But you insisted me ... It's a true copy paste from internet without reading my given points ... I had given the points which are the advantages of television and you are speaking something nuisance that T.V ain't good.You need to prove your points . Lemme remind you ( Debate are of proving the points and not speaking you own believes ... It's mentioned in the terms and condition of debate competition ) Brother I was kind and humble with you that doesn't mean that you would copy paste it from internet ... and that useless stuff ... First of all you need to read my points ... Just making a big font doesn't mean it's important points .. ANYWAYS !! I won't waste my round .... The sales of T.V's have become less compared to the olden times .... And the sales of LCD's are increasing ... So it means that the proportion of T.V are maintained at a specific limit ... Therefore, I think that there is no need to argue on this topic ... LCD AdvantagesBrightness Produces very bright images due to high peak intensity. Very suitable for environments that are brightly lit .Emissions Produce considerably lower electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields than CRTs.Geometric Distortion No geometric distortion at the native resolution. Minor distortion can occur for other resolutions.Power Consumption Energy efficient. Consume less than 1/3 the power of a comparable CRT. Consume less electricity than a CRT and produce little heat.Physical Aspects Take up about 40% less desk space. LCDs are thin and compact.Screen Shape Completely flat screen.Sharpness At the native resolution, the image is perfectly sharp. Adjustments are required at all other resolutions which can result in measurable degradation to the image.https://www.google.co.in... ( LINK ADDRESS FOR T.V SALES >>> GRAPH CHART ) https://www.google.co.in... ( LINK ADDRESS FOR LCD's SALES CHART >>> GRAPH CHART )
Children should not watch television

First TV is bad for you because it can harm your eyes. Television or no Television can change how our world works. With Television our lives don't go anywhere. Our education moves down greatly, our obeisity moves up intensly and our body in every way gets hurt. A question that should be answered is can we survive without television? With television our lives may be changed forever. Generation by generation will suffer and that is why I would like to start this debate, Should Television be banned?Television is a great way to hurt your education. Everyday in the morning when you wake up. The first thing you do while your waiting to get breakfast or even when your eating breakfast the T.V is on. You go to school and you are still thinking of the cool show you are watched in the morning. And that leads to a distraction during your school day. Even after you get home you probably get a snack but then click on the T.V. After you watch T.V your distracted again. You don't do quality homework and you go to sleep late which makes you brain worse the next day. As everyday goes by you don't gain any knowledge. A future plan will be hurt and generation by generation people will continue the same process. Television may not just change a day of someones life but a day of waste and a generation of suffering.Why in America is there the most obeisity? Why in America is there are so many junk foods? There may be some weird reason that leads to this answer. But a big reason is because theres T.V. When you watch T.V you are usually eating a snack. How does it get to you about eating the snack, well when you watch television you have a bond with you and a snack which tempts you to eat it. Another thing of how Television leads to obeisity is that when you eat and then watch T.V the fat and sugar of the food you ate dosen't turn it into energy but fat because because there is no exercise with T.V. A minute of television could mean a minute of fat.If you don't think obeisity is bad yet then think about your whole body taking damage. So far in my debate your brain gets hurt and so does your stomach, heart and brain. Your eyes will start to lose eyesite as you keep watching T.V. This can be a forever change in your life. Your hearing will lose as days go on with television, for listening to television hurts your ears if its continuos. A great way to hurt your whole body is television, and without it we would be much better off.Television caused much damage. If we still keep it we as humans will never feel like we accomplished something so great for television is so bad that Television should be banned.
Children should not watch television

I am really sorry to know that my worthy competitor has forfeited the previous round . Regarding the information of forfeiting round by my opponent . I won't be too long for this round . ( Coming to the topic ) I hereby urge to my point and emphasizes that Children should be allowed to watch television . My opponent haven't mentioned that children should watch television for a specific time . ( Which I also agree ) My worthy competitor thinks that watching television is nuisance for children . So therefore, given below are some of the many benefits of television . Offers Inspiration There truly is something for everyone on the hundreds of available television channels, and for kids, watching TV in moderation can help develop interests and even inspire further reading on a topic. Parents should be engaged in their children"s television viewing so they can be purveyors of further information. When a child sees something of interest or has questions about a particular topic, parents can use that as a springboard for deeper study. Helps English Language Learners Watching television gives kids whose native language is not English exposure to the conversational rhythms of spoken English. Just like college students taking Spanish are encouraged to go home and watch Telemundo or Univision to develop an ear for the language, students who are learning English can benefit from watching English-language television. Offers Social Connectedness Researchers found that television has a social benefit for kids who have difficulty connecting with others, in a study published in the journal Science Daily and conducted at the University of Buffalo and Miami University of Ohio. Shira Gabriel, Ph.D., one of the study"s authors, concludes that "Humans can use technologies, like television, to provide the experience of belonging when no real belongingness has been experienced." The study cautioned that kids withdrawing from family or friends to rely instead on "relationships" built with television characters is maladaptive, but for those with physical or psychological barriers that make social interaction difficult, television can offer some comfort. So I hereby urge that parents/guardians should allow their children to watch television . That's all from my side for this round . ( Thanking Everyone )
That a welfare state does more harm than good

Definitions Welfare State - a social system based on the assumption by a political state of primary responsibility for the individual and social welfare of its citizens . [1] Arguments 1. A welfare state does not provide as high of quality of welfare as the free market can. A welfare state would have a guaranteed monopoly on services such as health care, social security, and education, and as such, has no incentive to perform efficiently. In a free market, companies would have to provide a good service at a fair price in order to have a significant portion of the market. If they do not, they will lose money and go out of business. If a monopoly is guaranteed (such as when services are provided by the government), then this incentive no longer exists. If there is no reason to provide quality services at a competitive price (because the taxpayers will pay for it anyway), then this likely won't happen, which is detrimental to the citizen. 2. Welfare creates a cycle of dependence. If health care, for example, is provided by the government, then people will use the health care that is provided by the government and paid for through tax revenue. As the private health care providers don't have as many customers because more people are using the government health care, they will either make less money and eventually go out of business or raise prices to compensate and stay in business. either way, the result is a lack of affordable private health care providers. As most people can't afford health care on their own, it becomes more important for the government to provide it for them. Sources [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Two Party system is, in general a detriment the the progress of a democratic nation.

Realignment is something that happens, yes. But the resistance to change still stands, because it took an outsider, whether it be from within (With Donald Trump) or without (with Ross Perot) to change it. Also, your attack on my first reason I will admit was good by not good enough. I figured I wouldn't need evidence (seeing society as it is today as evidence enough) but since you asked I will offer examples, first the Civil Rights Movement the main disagreement came from a century before (I'm assuming you live in america so I don't need to explain further) this led to stubbornness, although not immediately with compromise after compromise, patience thinning each time the gridlock, leading to an "earthquake" (the ACW), back to CRM the "Democrats" tried to block the civil rights acts, time and time again, to the point that the party scismed not once but twice. Every time leading to a power vacuum that someone had to fill this leads me to.. Weimar, the republic used to have a two party system (with SPD and Zentrum), when the SPD went into freefall the power vacuum couldn't be filled by Zentrum. I think we both know what happens next. Not to mention, my opponent has still failed to mention a "Benefit" of the two party system. For this I can only see a pro vote in this debate.
The Two Party system is, in general a detriment the the progress of a democratic nation.

I sense some miscommunication, as I intended to Accept R1 and start R2. But no matter. I intend to prove that the two party system is not a net detriment to America. Pro's Reason 1: Bray says that the two party system leads to partisan politics and that this will lead to gridlock and lack of progress. I don't believe Bray had provided proof of this, or that even if the Two Party System does lead to "disagreements comes stubbornness, with stubbornness comes gridlock, with gridlock comes a lack of progress," that it alone causes more gridlock then other systems. Pro's Reason 2: Pro says that the Two Party system resists change. I would disagree to this, as there are multiple examples of the two parties realigning and I would argue that the Republican party "changed" when Trump utterly swept Ted Cruz and other Establishment Republicans aside, such as Marco Rubio. Eventually, the Republicans would support Trump. Realignment is a well established concept in politics. Ross Perot had saw some success, but ultimately failed to get long term results. It's easy to paint Reason 3: Pro says that the Two Party System leads to dictatorship, but doesn't say why this is, or why. Pro says that because the Weimar Republic, Russia and other such nations had Two Party Systems, that since America has a Two Party System, that will lead us to a dictatorship. This is false, as for example America is a farcry from the Weimar Republic and other conditions lead to Hitler's rise in power. With the Two Party System, the two parties can and have realign with their party base.
The Two Party system is, in general a detriment the the progress of a democratic nation.

I thank BrayBray for this debate. BrayBray had already posted his arguments. I went to a wedding this weekend, so I request he waive his R2 (though I personally don't mind) and I'll formally start. My position is that while two party politics isn't ideal, but that it still has a net benefit to America. I will assume Bray is American. The Two Party system is where there are two dominate the government [1]. "Detriment" means that it does not have a net benefit, and should be done away with with a more democratic option. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Two Party system is, in general a detriment the the progress of a democratic nation.

Politics in a two party system are innately detrimental to societal progress for three main reasons. REASON 1: Two Party politics are innately polarizing, if there are only two parties with a chance to win(be it "de facto" or "de jure") leads to the general opinion becoming increasingly partisan, with partisan politics comes disagreements, with disagreements comes stubbornness, with stubbornness comes gridlock, with gridlock comes a lack of progress. REASON 2: Two Party politics tend to resist change, the one thing they will ever agree on, is that third parties shouldn't have a voice. Without a voice third parties have two routes, be absorbed or revolt and get crushed. As JFK said, "Those who don't make peaceful revolution possible, make violent revolution inevitable" which leads me to... REASON 3: Two Party politics inevitably lead to a dictatorship, whether it be oligarchic(with America and cronyism), communistic(with Post-Tsarist Russia), fascistic(with Weimar Germany) when the two party system fails to answer all of the voices from which the populace speak, this leads to a a coup when a populist gets power, creating a "dictatorship" of the establishment where all of the rights intended to keep the republic afloat fall, creating the "Paltoesque" collapse of the republic.
Abortion

First of all, I would like to say that it is unfortunate that CON waited until the final round to drop details such as the position from which she was debating. I may have chosen to respond differently, but now I cannot because CON would not have any opportunity to rebut my arguments, so I will, once again, do the best I can with what I have. As I’m sure CON recalls, my “illegal killing” argument was a line of argument I said I was not going to take; I mentioned it only to clarify a point. Next, CON went on some sort of tangent about viability, which she never actually tied down to an argument. She claims that a fetus can be viable five weeks after implantation. I am confused by this claim because it is dead wrong. Fetal viability, or the point at which a fetus is able to survive outside the mother’s body [1], is usually put between 24 and 28 weeks [1][2]. Perhaps CON is confusing pregnancy viability with fetal viability. I think CON missed my whole point about giving human status to all vertebrates. Of course it is absurd; that was my point. However, if CON is going to assign personhood based on a heartbeat, that is the logical conclusion. Regarding rape, CON is a walking contradiction. She talks about how we shouldn’t murder babies by aborting them, but it is suddenly OK when the object is to avoid further trauma to the mother. Its either murder or it is not; you can’t have it both ways. I didn’t discuss CON's comments about birth control because they are irrelevant. The claim that women use abortion as their primary form of birth control is a myth. Often times their preferred method of contraception failed [3][4]. CON’s last point is an unsupported claim that “if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.” A source here would be helpful; because I’m pretty sure reality reflects the opposite. I wasn’t able to find figures specifically on teen pregnancy, but in areas of the world where abortion has been criminalized, the abortion rate has not dropped [4][5]. CON has tried to argue that abortion is wrong if the fetus has a heartbeat; I showed why this line of reasoning doesn’t pan out. She then went on to a discussion about viability, however her argument wasn’t properly formed, and I wasn’t able to determine exactly what she was saying. Con’s rape exception shows that her position is rocky at best, and finally her unsupported claim that criminalizing abortion would reduce teen pregnancy seems to be at odds with the available data. Overall, CON has failed to show why abortion should not be legal. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.babymed.com... [3] http://www.prochoice.org... [4] http://www.womenscenter.com... [5] “Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008,” The Lancet, Volume 379, Issue 9816, Pages 625 - 632, 18 February 2012
Abortion

Lets begin with Pro's argument about currently legal abortion, as abortion is not legal in my state. There is currently much debate about whether or not to legalize it, the purpose of my debate is to show why not to legalize it. It also goes to show why Pro's 'illegal killing' argument is invalid and does not pertain to all states, including mine. Moving on. Since most home pregnancy tests detect pregnancy as early as a week after a missed period, 5 weeks after implantation, the fetus is then considered viable. (babymed.com) Current abortion laws in 13 different states do not allow abortion after 24 weeks because "a presumption of viability" exists. (wikipedia) If a 24 weeks fetus is considered viable, why not a 4-5 week fetus? The insinuation that all vertebrates be given human status because they all have heartbeats is absurd. But if that's the way you look at it, grant them human status then it would be illegal to kill and eat them as it would be considered cannibalism. As for pregnancy stemming from rape, the decision to abort would be completely left up to the mother. You said why add murder to a terrible thing like rape? Why should a woman be forced to carry a child that is a product of a hate crime? What about the daily reminder of the terrible crime commited against her? Rape victims want to move forward with their lives not be reminded of the incident everyday when they look down at their growing bellies. Why cause more pain and suffering by forcing her to carry it ? As you offered no argument on my statements about the abundance of birth control available to women today, I can only assume that you understand and agree with that fact. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the point I made in my last statement, and say that these numerous forms of birth control are available at little or no cost to a woman and most certainly should be utilized if pregnancy is not desired. Too often young women are engaging in sexual intercourse unprotected without thought to the consequences. Knowing, in some cases, that if they happen to get pregnant, it can just be 'taken care of'. No more should this be a viable option for irresponsible women. You made your bed lie in it. I'm willing to bet if abortion were no longer an option, birth control would be better utilized, and teen pregnancy would drop.
Abortion

First of all, since CON has not specified, I presume that we are talking about abortions that are currently legal, and that CON is making arguments as to why they should not be so. Secondly, I would like to point out that as murder is defined as an illegal killing [1][2], any attempt to simply define an abortion as murder fails on its face because the abortions we are talking about are already legal, and therefore, not murder. However, I don’t think this is really what CON meant, and I am not going to try to argue that semantic point. CON wrote, “a babies heart starts beating 4 weeks after conception therfore it is to be considered a living human being…” CON is arguing that before its heart begins to beat, a fetus is not a human being. If we accept this definition; we are throwing out any argument about a fetus being genetically human or about being a potential human. I can deal with that. However, if we ignore genetics and potentiality, and grant human status to anything with a heartbeat, then we have to grant human status to all vertebrates, as all vertebrates have hearts [3]. This is an absurd suggestion. I would now like to address a little confusion I have with one of the two exceptions CON suggested to her anti-abortion stance: rape. If CON considers a 4 week old fetus to be a “living human being,” and furthermore that terminating that life is tantamount to murder, why can there be a rape exception? A rape is a terrible thing; why add murder on top of it? Perhaps this is something CON can clear up in the final round. Since CON has decided that genetics and potentiality do not give a creature human status, and I have shown why it is absurd to offer such a status on the basis of a heartbeat, there has been no case made as to why a fetus should be granted such a status. Therefore, the case CON has made for the changing of our current laws regarding abortion falls flat. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Japan should be able to have a military and control of Okinawa.

In this round I continue to presenting one rebuttal for Pro`s arguments. Rebuttal: Make the area a safer to possible invaders. If Japan were to re-militarize, I believe it would not make the area a safer place to possible invaders. China and North Korea have nuclear weapons. Japan does not have a technology to produce nuclear weapons. Japanese Constitution rules that the country refrains from not only producing but having them. Japanese people would not accept in holding them. Therefore, Japan must depend on the U.S. military to make the area safer to possible enemies. When we think of invaders, Japan must take terrorists into consideration. It is very difficult to predict when and where they invade into the country and in what way they attack people and the heart of big cities like Tokyo or Osaka. Japan is not well equipped for coping with terrorists attack. However, the U.S. has excellent intelligence and information network around the world which contribute to preventing their attacks. According to Greg Miller, ``among the Pentagon`s top intelligence priorities are Islamist militant groups in Africa, weapons transfers by North Korea and Iran, and military modernization in China.``( Pentagon to expand spying network overseas, The Japan Times, December 3, 2012) Since the Sep. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, U.S. has constructed unprecedented spy network overseas. ( Pentagon to expand spying network overseas) From above arguments I firmly believe that re-militarization of Japan does not bring about any benefits for the country.
Japan should be able to have a military and control of Okinawa.

I want to present a number of rebuttals for Pro`s arguments made in Round 1. 1. Increase U.S. -Japan relations I believe that the remilitarization of Japan does not contribute to increasing U.S. - Japan relations. As you already know, the relationship between the two countries has been kept strong and friendly since the end of World War Second. Many Japanese people understand that this close relationship as indispensable for the country from the econmic, political and military point of view. 2. Alleviate U.S. Responsibilities If Japan were to remilitarize, it would not alleviate U.S. responsibilities. Japan and the U.S. have had a joint military exercises so far. Japanese Government is not well prepared for being attacked by neighboring countries like China and North Korea. Therefore, Japan must ask for military help from the U.S. The U.S. will play as the World Policeman to protect the rest of the world from terrorism, regional conflicts and the nuclear war. The U.S. government is less aggressive in reducing the budget for defense. Newly-elected U.S. president, Obama declared that ``We want to pass on a country that is safe and respected around the world, a nation that is defended by the strongest military on Earth and the best troops this world has ever known, but also a country that moved with confidence beyond this time of war to shape a peace that is built on the promise of freedom and dignity for every human being.``( Obama`s dream hits reality, by Kevin Rafferty. The Japan Times, November 29, 2012) In round 3 I continue to prensenting rebuttals for Pro`s arguments.