BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should teens be able to buy violent video games and why

I am going to be in the center on this issue. Although some teens can handle violent video games, some can not. Some, in studies, have become more aggressive and less-agreeable due to the playing of violent video games. My personal position is that we should not take risks; violent video games should be more strongly prohibited against teens than now. I believe that a parent can decide what is right for their children - but the teen should not be able to buy the game without parental consent.
Trends are going to be more stupid every single year.

So first off, burden of proof is on you to show that trends are going to keep getting more and more stupid as the years progress. You absolutely failed to do this by giving a flawed example that does nothing to fulfill your burden of proof. Now let’s look at the definition of trend. Trend - “a general direction in which something is developing or changing.” [1] As history progresses so have society, science, and philosophy. For example, once upon a time slavery in the United States was regarded as normal and now it is seen as quite heinous. This is an example of trend, because we see how slavery progressed into freedom though time. My opponent would have to argue that progresses like these would be “generally regarded to as stupid.” In addition, pop culture trends like what my opponent referenced cannot be generally stupid for they never would have become a popular trend if it truly were stupid. The general population must have thought “YOLO” was appropriate and therefore used it. Overall though, my opponent must argue that humanity’s recent intellectual progress and our progresses of the future are stupid. That truly is a burden of proof which is impossible to fulfill. So first off, burden of proof is on you to show that trends are going to keep getting more and more stupid as [1] https://www.google.com...
Should we use cell phones in school

Mobile phones are inappropriate in schools. They take students' attention away from their lessons and undermine discipline. Rules about having them turned off in lessons are impossible to enforce – students just put them in silent mode and secretly text or play games in the back of the class. There have been many cases of students using mobiles to cheat in tests, and some of students recording embarrassing footage of their teachers to post on the internet. Schools are for learning and anything which gets in the way of that should be banned.
Should we use cell phones in school

Mobile phones make children less safe. Firstly they are carrying an expensive fashion item that makes them a target for criminals. Millions of people are robbed of cell phones every year, sometimes with violence. Secondly, many children spend so much time talking on the phone or texting that they are less aware of what is going on around them. Each year young people get run over crossing the street because their attention was on their phone conversation, not the traffic.
Should we use cell phones in school

There are possible long-term health risks from using mobile phones. Some research suggests that the radio waves from mobile phones may harm people's brains. Because children's brains are still developing, any possible damage to them is even more worrying than for adults. It is true there is no total scientific proof about this, but it is better to play safe than take risks – the precautionary principle. Until science can prove mobile phones are completely safe for young people to use, they should not be allowed to have them.
Kanye west is better than any Greek tragedian.

The only problem is that we have no idea how profound the emotions of those at the time were in response to these stories. Kanye's success is very much dependent on his time period, where music similar to his is very popular. I do not believe that had Kanye West's life taken place in any other time period, he (or anyone else for that matter) would develop a musical style like the LP that has affected you so greatly. In a similar trend, the greek style of storytelling relied heavily on the ideals of the time. Living in ancient Greece, listening to MBDTF would probably not induce a catharsis because the listener would have nothing to relate the emotions that the LP wants to evoke. Similarly, you are affected by Kanye's storytelling much more deeply than any greek tragedy can muster. I, personally, am greatly touched by Pink Floyd's "Shine on You Crazy Diamond" for the catharsis i feel when listening to it. My point is that everyone is made happy by certain things, discontented by others, and still maddened by others: nobody is alike in this regard. Objectively calling Kanye's music "better" because of your emotions is not a fair universal statement and cannot be displayed as such. Furthermore, how exactly do you *know* that the greek plays did not evoke as much of a catharsis as Kanye's music does? We do not have many records of greek history in this regard, so a more indirect approach to finding out the emotions of the greeks is required. The greeks were so heavily affected by the stories of the time that they based their religion around them. The ironic cruelty of Orpheus' curiosity getting the better of him was so powerful to the greeks that they built it into their very culture and daily life. They worshipped these gods, each of whom caused immense pain and joy to the victims of their stories, both out of respect and out of fear. The power of these stories reverberated enough inside of every greek at the time that they actually revered the powerful figures they had made for themselves in the stories. Even today, millions read and re-read the tales of tragedy and heroism from back then. Only one state could be powerful enough to keep one being drawn back in for more, and that mental state is catharsis.
Kanye west is better than any Greek tragedian.

I agree with you on the point that these plays are still very much relevant today. Sadly they are simply are too dated to accomplish the very thing they are meant for. I judge art on the grounds of what the artist themselves were trying to accomplish. In this case of tragedies it is evoking a CATHARSIS. My beautiful dark twisted fantasy is a wonderful example of a modern tragedy and is easily comparable in this subject.
Kanye west is better than any Greek tragedian.

You say that greek tragedies/comedies are not as effective at delivering a catharsis to their viewers/listeners/readers/what have you due to their age; they have expired in a way. While it may be true that every emotion felt back then about certain topics doesn't correspond to the same feelings today, that is no reason to simply neglect these older writings. If it were not for the greek heroes, the glorification of said heroes would not be as extensive and in turn the need to provide a catharsis to your audience would not be as necessary. The greeks provided the structure for today's tragic and heroic tales, so shunning them for not going above and beyond just the framework of a story is as unnecessary and stupid as calling your ancestors lame because they didn't invent iPhones.
Kanye west is better than any Greek tragedian.

In the case of the classical Greek tragedy, the objective of the playwrights was to evoke a CATHARSIS. Wikipedia states that a catharsis is a sudden emotional breakdown or climax that constitutes overwhelming feelings of great pity, sorrow, laughter, or any extreme change in emotion that results in renewal, revitalization. Listening to Kanye Wests fifth LP "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy", one can quickly get the idea that Mr. West tried to achieve the same thing - to make people feel. So let's go with that: If we throw away all bias and prejudice based on the fact that most Greek tragedy (let's say, for example, Sofocles' Antigone) is academically valued and appreciated and MBDTF(My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy) is not, we end up comparing them on the ground of evoking emotions, a catharsis. Antigone may be relevant today as much as it was in the Greek times (and will continue to be for a long time) in field of motifs and ideas, but bringing up feelings is where it falls flat. The world has simply changed too much for the ancient Greek bringers of catharsis to remain as powerful as they were. MBDTF, on the other hand, was one of the most emotionally "powerful" albums I have ever listened to, and I strongly believe I'm not alone in this. It does, in whole, convey such powerful sense of emotion, the feeling that you are a different person than an hour ago when you hear the last words on "Who Will Survive In America" Kanye West is the Sartre of our generation.
Obama has not fullfilled his campaign promises well

In response to several of my opponents points, particularly his opening, while "technically" a 60/40 majority is needed to break a filibuster, there is a way in the senate where a filibuster can be broken using only a 51/59 majority. This is called the "nuclear option" (. http://en.wikipedia.org...), and the Republicans threatened to use it during Bush's term. Though it could be argued that this is Congress', not the President's, fault, as leader of his party, it is Obama's job to rally the Democratic senators to vote together. I do, however concede with my opponent's point about the wars. Regarding Health care, my opponent claims that I did not address his point about pre-existing conditions, whereas I pointed out loopholes that can be found in the new regulation. In addition, my opponent claims that Obama did not promise a public option, despite his comments supporting one (. http://www.washingtonpost.com...). My original point about the START treaty was meant to note that though this can be considered a fulfilled promise, it is not really a significant one, as wide support from both parties indicates that it may have been passed even under Bush or another Republican president. I concede my point on the Bush cuts and the Wisconsin protests. However, the DREAM act should have been passed regardless of a filibuster (see my opening points). There are some other important points I would like to make note of. First of all, though initially he made an executive order to close down Guantanamo Bay, he has recently made a separate executive order reopening it, a clear departing from his original campaign promise. In addition, despite initially wanting a review of the Patriot Act, he signed a bill reauthorizing its most controversial measures (. http://www.politifact.com...). Furthermore, in the recent debt ceiling compromise, there exists no revenue increases. Instead, there are a huge amount of spending cuts, including cuts from Medicare.
Obama has not fullfilled his campaign promises well

Thanks Mr. Anon. ==PolitiFacts== My opponent cannot count campaign promises that resulted in a compromise with Repubs as "broken" promises. The entire point of our political system, particularly the new supermajority rules in the Senate, are designed to force compromise. Stalled also does not mean broken - it means he's pushing for that legislation but Congress either does not have the time or inclination to do anything about it. Even with a more conservative estimate, Obama has compromised to get through as many promises as he has broken, but he has THREE TIMES AS MANY promises that he has DIRECTLY kept than that he has broken. He also has 3 times more promises that are "in the works" than that are stalled. ==Wars== My opponent claims that Libya cost as much as Iraq. We were in Libya for two weeks, with only air support, and it only cost around $1 billion. http://abcnews.go.com... Obama also never promised to NOT intervene in struggles for democracy; the Arab Spring necessitated we do something to gain Arab good will. ==Health Care== Obama never promised a public option in the campaign. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com... My opponent claims it does not make health care more affordable, but it provides government subsidies to help people with the Individual Mandate, and creates insurance pools to lower prices. It also makes all our premiums lower because the uninsured no longer use the emergency room as primary care, which hospitals charge us (the already insured) for. My opponent never responds to mental health parity or pre-existing conditions being covered now. ==START== Just because the Republicans support something doesn't make it NOT a campaign promise. Obama promised multiple times to deal with non-proliferation. In fact, it's a ridiculous burden to have to prove that Obama achieved only things that Republicans opposed. ==DADT== Obama never promised to repeal DOMA or pass federal gay marriage, since he IS against it. He did, however, promise to end DADT, which he did. ==Bush cuts== Yeah, he needed tax cuts for the poor, since this was a campaign promise and the economy needed it, but the Republicans held that hostage. Either way, my opponent doesn't answer my argument that HUGE defense cuts were passed with the debt ceiling raise to FORCE Republicans to concede later on tax cuts. Obama is a man with a plan. ==DREAM ACT== Failed because the Republicans filibustered it in the lame duck session. Obama still plans to get it passed when he wins another term and has done all he can by issuing an Executive Order telling INS not to deport the very young, college educated illegal immigrants the DREAM Act tries to give amnesty to. ==Wisconsin== Getting in the picket line with them was clearly rhetoric. We have to separate a campaign promise from a rhetorical flourish. He DID show his support publicly.
Obama has not fullfilled his campaign promises well

For this round, I shall address my opponent's points. First of all, regarding the politifact, these figure actually show that 153 have been broken, stalled, or compromised, while 141 have actually been kept. Another 212 are "in the works", which is still not the same as truly being kept. In response to some of the inividual promises kept that you noted. 1. While it is true that Obama got troops out of Iraq and sent additional troops to Afghanistan, keep in mind that he also started a third war in Libya, which has used up much of the money saved by decreasing activity in Iraq. 2. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while often stated as a "Universal Health Care" bill, has many flaws. This bill achieves "Universal" healthcare by enacting a mandate for all Americans, essentially saying "You must buy Health Insurance". The bill does little else to reduce costs of healthcare. While the bill technically prohibits exclusion based on Pre-existing conditions, there are some loopholes insurance companies have bee able to find (see . http://www.georgiainsuranceshop.com...). Again, I raise the point that while Obama promised a public health insurance option during his campaign, he never proposed or even advocated one while in office. 3. This is correct. However, note that the START Treaty was supported by many Republicans as well (. http://www.nytimes.com...). 4. Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed, yes, but Obama has done little else to support gay rights. Note that his official position remains opposed to Gay Marriage (. http://www.guardian.co.uk...). 5. This is partially incorrect, as this was still during the Supermajority lame duck session, and the Republicans were not holding the budget hostage, but rather the tax cuts for the lower class. But in any case, the fact remains that he compromised with the Republicans. The compromise in question was more in favor to the Republicans then the Democrats, with the only "Democratic" part of the compromise was the extension of unemployment benefits. The compromise altogether resulted in a large increase in spending during the following months. Obama may have "promised" to not let them extend, but even if the Democrats regain a supermajority in the upcoming election, the Bush Tax cuts will come into negotiation during the lame duck session wherethe Republicans will still have the House. 6. Obama's major bill related, the Dream Act, failed in congress (note that this was when the Democrats still controlled congress) 7. In his campaign, Obama clearly said that if American workers would ever be denied rights, he would "put on a comfortable pair of shoes and I will walk on that picket line with [them]". Unfortunately, I am out of characters, but I will try to address any remaining points in my last round.
Obama has not fullfilled his campaign promises well

Barrack Obama, current president of the United States has not fullilled a sufficient number of his original promises from his 2008 campaign. There are several examples of this. Primarily, he failed to pass a public health care option, a key part of his original healthcare plan. In addition, he extended the Bush-era tax cuts, failed to pass a comprehensive policy concerning illegal immiration, has not actively supported Gay rights, and said nothing when Wisconsin public workers were stripped of their bargaining rights (when he had campaigned that he would defend such rights if they were ever in question). Recently, he has compromised with Republicans numerous times during negotiations regarding budget and the debt ceiling, and nearly all of these compromises were in Republican's favor, notably the debt ceiling compromise, which included massive cuts without any additional revenue. For this debate, my opponent must cite significant accomplishments made by President Obama.
Obama has not fullfilled his campaign promises well

Thanks for the debate! ==Rebuttal== 1) The Nuclear Option This is precisely what Obama used to pass his health care bill. However, the Republicans made a HUGE deal about using the nuclear option, so Obama can only use a VERY limited number of times. Of course there are things Obama can't get because the Republicans will not let him pursue his agenda. 2) Wars My opponent CONCEDES this. This is HUGE. This was #1 on most Democrats' wish lists - finish both wars and get us out, without losing, as quickly as possible. That is what Obama has done. 3) Health care Obama DID achieve mental health parity, cover pre-existing conditions, cap health care companies profits, and create insurance pools to help individual buyers purchase insurance for less money. The Individual Mandate will also lower premiums for the currently insured because the uninsured will no longer use the emergency room as their primary care facility. My opponent's only real argument here is that Obama made a statement once supporting the public option. However, he never promised the public option in his campaign. Not a promise, hence not broken. Obama has done astounding things for health care in this country. 4) START Bush did not have the foreign policy wherewithal to make it happen, more specifically because he insisted in missile defense off Russia's border. Obama's "Russia Reset" policy was what got non-proliferation kick-started. 5) Bush tax cuts/Wisconsin My opponent concedes these, meaning he does not have much left. 6) DREAM He can't just keep using the nuclear option; he has achieved progress on the Dream Act, though, through the executive branch and executive orders. 7) New arguments Not typically allowed in the final speech. -Guantanamo Obama tried to close Guantanamo, but NO state governors (primarily Republicans) would accept the prisoners in regular prisons. He had no choice but to re-open it. -Patriot Act According to my opponent's source, most of the controversial parts are already permanent law. The part that was up for re-authorization was roving wiretaps (if the defendant switches phones, the police can tap the new number without going back to a judge). This just sounds like a good idea. DROPS: 1) DADT repeal - huge achievement for Obama and gay rights. 2) List - I listed a HUGE number of things in round 1, all of which were dropped. HUGE foreign policy achievement in Pakistan against the Taliban; domestic violence accomplishment; FEMA improvement accomplished; water conservation; HUGE prevention of the revolving door to lobbyists offices from the Executive Branch; huge VA funding increases, consumer financial protection agency, etc. Additional voter: Politifacts - 141 kept promises, only 42 broken. 3 times more kept than broken. 3 times more in the works than stalled. Clear win, numerically, for the Con.
Justin Bieber could beat Hulk Hogan in a fight.

What resources are you talking about? The Internet is full of people preparing to help the Real American beat Justin Bieber. The Bieb is 123.5 pounds and is 5 ft 7 [1]. The Hulkster is currently 208 pounds and is 6 ft 7 [2]. Clear advantage to Hulk. Pro's argument is debunked! Hulk was the first ever to beat Andre the Giant and body slammed him [2]. The Giant was 7 ft 5 and 525 pounds [3]. Even if pro wrestling is fake, body slamming him is still an impressive feat! Hulk could probably defeat Justin by blowing him down (not in that way you perverts). Where was JB when Hulk was owning in the ring? He didn't even exist! That means Hogan probably has scars older than Justin! Bebs probably doesn't even have scars! Hulk is the third ever to hold six times the WWE world Championship [2]. What can Justin do? He can musically say the word “baby”. Justin would probably forfeit the fight and cry. The resolution is negated! Hulk Hogan eats JB for breakfast, brother! [1] http://healthyceleb.com... [2] http://www.hulkhogan.co.uk... [3] http://www.andrethegiant.com...
What u wrote

"What is a Chore? A chore is regarded as something one is being forced to do, and in this case implied boredom. For those have a passion of literature it is not a chore, nor is it a chore for those who like the book. But for some, especially those with reading difficulties, it is a chore. A task which is lengthy, and often is followed by a long essay. Although personally I find reading classics interesting. I understand the ideas of those who find it a burden...?" - u BOGUS Like - CLASSics is gud and needed for like education so you can get a good job.
What u wrote

What a peculiar debate... In my statement, I did say that Classics were interesting and but I could also understand why to some this might be a burden. Of course, English assignments are based on one's ability to analyze and examine the text properly, and for those who don't like reading, or those with difficulties such as dyslexia - it certainly can be a problem and that is what I am saying. I by no means am saying that reading classics could not get you a good job or is bad, but what I did mean was that it can be difficult, and as the title suggested in the poll - boring. I hope you understand my point. REFERENCES: http://www.debate.org... http://bookriot.com...