BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Technology: Reducing the quality of Human Interaction

If alcohol or cigarettes were bad for you wouldn't people stop that? No, as I demonstrated in the previous round it causes a dependence and supplements for human interaction and can become addicting. You mention the possibility of another distraction in the car. Legislation is already passing to ban texting while driving in many states because it is a serious distraction. 33% of drivers reported texting while driving (1). This means their eyes are off the road even if just for a second it could be one second too late. I don't think the risks of this need to be mentioned as I said states are already passing laws prohibiting such activities. It may make introverts feel better, but that is a false crutch. Doesn't improve their experience in the real world and often times takes the place of real interactions. If someone else is living a facade as well how real is your interaction with them. You don't have the ability to truly know someone unless you can interact with them in real life. You can feel like you do but that is all based on what they say. Intimacy is the most obvious missing element that cannot truly be achieved without the in person physical element. You can do things alternatively but intimacy is an extremely important aspect of a healthy relationship. Checking the mail that arrives everyday at the same time versus checking your phone every few minutes is hardly the same thing. One makes way to an extreme amount of your time whereas the other is minimal. You mention authors are capable of displaying tone and it is "an art" as you put it. Not everyone is capable of this gift or art. Emoticons can not tell you if a person is being sarcastic or joking. Emoticons do take the place of tone sometimes as do all capital letters. However, unless you can pick up on non verbal cues like in person you don't know if the person is being genuine. Or you have less tools to discern this. You seem to concede to the fact that people misuse technology and instead of enjoying their friends or watching a concert they are instead involved in technology. I think that is sufficient to display that the quality of human interactions is negatively affected by technology you say we have to learn to take the good with the bad, and I agree that good does come of technology, but at the cost of what? I would argue the quality of our human interactions. (1) http://vc.bridgew.edu...
Technology: Reducing the quality of Human Interaction

You mention it increase human interaction, but I would argue the quality of the interactions. While roughly a third of the populous are introverts(1), I can see the allure of alternative forms of communication. This is because of the anonymity, this is because you can be whoever you want to be, you don't have to face the person you're communicating with. I would argue that these very reasons that introverts are drawn to alternative forms of communications is evidence to support the disconnect that technology is causing. Social Networking Sites and things like it are appealing to introverts as "social compensation" (2). Also according to studies these cause a decrease in real life social community participation and academic achievement as well as cause relationship problems (2). This also lends itself to addiction. How often do you check your social media sites? This means that we are substituting real life interactions with these alternative communication avenues. Have you ever heard of the statement that a tone wasn't able to be derived via text. There is a lot lost in translation that you don't get with face to face interaction and you aren't able to pick up on body language, tone, and things of the sort. The draw of alternative communications for introverts actually further stunts their social abilities as it presents an easier alternative than the uncomfortableness of a social setting. While technology has expanded the reaches of our communication, I would argue that valuable in person time gets stunted in the process. How often do we find people at concerts taking video/pictures instead of actually seeing the events through their eyes they see it through a lens. How often are people in the same room but aren't speaking because they are texting/facebook messaging. Another real example of the negative impacts of technology are in the form of dangers. As driving is a human interaction with those around us, texting while driving is a prime example of the digital communication world coming to a large crash with the real world (literally). Not to mention predators that have taken advantage of the digital age. (1) http://www.bbc.com... (2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Technology: Reducing the quality of Human Interaction

While I agree that technology does distance us sometimes, I think that it increases human interaction a great deal. Many people are introverts, but through technology and social media they gain confidence. As a result they are better off in human interactions. The majority of people use technology to communicate with others, often calling or texting to meet and go places, meeting their dates online, etc. If it wasn't for technology, many human interactions would never occur.
Technology: Reducing the quality of Human Interaction

As the con, I am taking on the role of arguing the negative ramifications of technology (in use). Specifically in regards to the quality of human interaction. Note - I agree that technology is a tool and not an agent in which would be responsible for its actions. I'm discussing the usage of said technology only and the effects therein. For the purposes of this debate, human interaction will be defined as the effect in which we act and react to those around us. Unless an alternative agreed upon definition is presented.
Christians should refrain from going to anti-gay rallies.

Thank you for posting. My last post will be brief, seeing that I have already made my point. You asked me to provide you with another source of anti-gay violence. When I did, you called it hasty generalization. I believe I have made my point concerning the matter. At most rallies there is some sort of strife. You claim that the our nation will not listen to us unless we go to the rallies. The truth is though, the media only wants stories where some action happened. The news tries to get the negative side of the stories when it comes to being anti-gay. Please provide me with a link in your last argument showing how an anti-gay rally went well, and lots of gay people turned from their way. You said 'The Christians that are giving us a bad name at these rallies are never going to quit making fools of us even if they read this debate.' I am not trying to get them to stop by reading this debate, I am saying that Christians should refrain from going to anti-gay rallies. To answer your question, If you look at the definition of peaceful, and then look at this website, this website would not be peaceful. Let me ask you this, you say that anti-gay rallies help. Okay, so let's switch it up a bit. If you walk by a peaceful gay freedom rally every day, will that change your mind? The truth is that anti-gay rallies do not make people stop being gay, all they do is give more and more people hate for the Christians. I have made my point, therefore I will say no more. I would like to thank my opponent for excepting my debate and not forfeiting. Audience, I thank you for reading. Even though con has one more round to post, I believe I have already won conduct, most reliable sources, and spelling and grammar. Who had the most convincing argument is up to you.
Christians should refrain from going to anti-gay rallies.

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Thank you for posting. Peace means free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder. It does not just mean violence. Someone shouting is a clear sign of strife. Please watch video #1. The point is that Christians won't reformat their rallies; it will continue to go on the way it is. Your grammar is so confusing in this statement: ‘It would be better to the man why the porn and heroin is unhealthy for him in the hear and now.' I am sorry but I can not even interrupt that. Please tell me what you mean in your next argument. There are not many people who will hear that drugs and porn is wrong and immediately give it up. You claim that people react to different methods, this is true. But in your source, the Christian does not just walk up to someone and say that they are wrong. He talks to them. Answer me this, would a homeless man be more willing to talk to someone who buys them lunch, or someone who will tell them why they are wrong. You said that you have a friend who is gay, then went on to say that he is not gay now…..okay. That is beside the point My friends who are gay do not always listen to me and turn from their sins. But even if they never realize that they are sinning, at least they can see that there are Christians that can love. I don't care about being a stupid Christian friend, they are human just as you and I, and they need love. I do not want to beat anyone up. I am saying that I do not yell at homosexuals about going to hell and all that stuff like they do at anti-gay protest. You are getting to technical, why would I bring my gay friend to an anti gay protest? What I was saying is what if he sees me on the news or walks by the protest and sees me there. You know? Okay, now after all that I will say a short thing, Watch video #2 That lady was obviously crazy, but she got on the news. This one Christian and her rally group made a lot of people hate Christians. But if you notice, there is no violence in her rallies. Read some of these comments. 1.This is why people hate Christians. F*** these f***ing wackos 2.I hate religious nuts 3.So what, Christians think everyone who doesn't follow god is an abomination so wtf ever . In your next debate, please refrain from nit picking at what I have to say and post your argument. Try to explain to me how these rallies show compassion and love to the gays. Show me how the protests convert the homosexuals. Please remember to use good grammar. Thank you. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.wayofthemaster.com... Youtube videos
Christians should refrain from going to anti-gay rallies.

In my first argument I said that I believed that people can be born gay and I stated why. I then went on to say that it was beside the point, meaning that I do not wish to debate whether or not people can gay. I wish to debate whether or not Christians should go to anti gay rallies. Now I will start with the actual debate. An anti gay rally is usually not peaceful. There have been countless fights and deaths because of people trying to make a point. The people who are at the meetings are not always the ones who start the fight. Many times a homosexual will leap into the crowd and start hitting, shooting, kicking, or just start saying things that people will take offence to. This causes people to fight back, usually resulting in someone getting injured, or someone dying. Another reason Christians should avoid going is because homosexuals will look at Christians and see them judging. Even if the Christian just wants to help, the world does not see it that way. They see it as a way of displaying hatred. Think about this, if a Christian is ministering out in the streets and sees a man sitting on a bench taking heroin and viewing a porn magazine. The Christian goes up to him and says that he is wrong and he will go to hell if he does not stop. This will not make the drug user stop sinning, but rather give him more hate for the Christians. Instead, why not go to the man and ask him if he wants to have a cup of coffee, or if he would like some food, or simply if you could just have a talk? Getting to know the person will create a real true relationship. Only then should you really talk about their problems. So many people hate Christians because all they see is them judging. God says, ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged. ' Lots of Christians in today's world would rather bunch up with a lot of people and say that homosexuals are wrong, rather than go out into the world and talk with those who are lost. I have friends who are gay. I would not call them my best friends, but they are my friends. I sometimes talk to them about their homosexuality and they listen to what I say. I do not beat them with the bible, but rather have a simple friendly discussion. Now what do you think will happen if my friend who is homosexual sees me yelling at an anti gay meeting. That would destroy our friendship, and destroy all hopes of me reaching out to him. Hate the sin, not the sinner. I look forward to your response. Sources: (1). . http://www.bartleby.com... (2). . http://www.foxreno.com... (3). . http://www.wikihow.com... (4). . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Christians should refrain from going to anti-gay rallies.

Thank you for starting this debate. Koopin, you have stated you accept that homosexuality is a sin. Okay. You know what else is usually accepted as a sin? Murder. By your reasoning murder must be as okay as homosexuality because some people are inevitably born murderer's. Seeing as all humans are born with sin in their hearts any particular sin according to you can become at birth part of the core of their being, whatever it is that defines their soul. If murder were to become a national problem that it was just being accepted as okay and it was becoming less illegal throughout the states as they repealed their laws against it, I would expect Christians to be out their holding rallies against the lifestyle of ending other people's lives. When people start to think darkness is light, that darkness is very dark indeed at such a point. http://www.biblegateway.com... So it is pivotal that Christians, the bearer's of light, continue to shine some truth on the matter to the people who think the darkness is in fact light. Here the analogy is that something sinful, like homosexuality or murder, is darkness. And the good and not sinful is light. So thinking murder or homosexuality is Okay when it is not is like viewing darkness as light, making that darkness very dark indeed. An anti-gay rally, where you take a stand with other Christians against something that would try to make the sin more okay, is one of the few peaceful methods of making the truth of the fact known to those who are very lost in that extra dark darkness. Now a single rally may not convince someone lost in that darkness that what they do is a sin and is not good for them, just like a single prayer may not seem to produce results. And this is why we pray every night for the things we choose to pray for, and it is why that same persistence in anti-gay rallies is justified. Also, upon salvation the stain of the sin we are born with is removed, as if by Oxyclean! (But by Christ's blood) It is gone, so being saved witch is what we want for these people would eliminate their 'gayness' that they have to live with because the source you attributed it to is no longer present making the excuse no longer viable. I look foward to your response.
Christians should refrain from going to anti-gay rallies.

Before I start let me say this, I do believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also believe, unlike many Christians, that people can be born gay. The reason I believe this is because humans are born with sin in their hearts. But that is beside the point. The votes are welcome to anyone though I need my opponent to be a Christian. I am stating that Christians should refrain from going to anti gay rallies. I will let my opponent start.
Resolved: Parents ought be banned from forcing minors into ex-gay therapy or conversion practices.

Look at that :Hopefully my opponent comes back, but if not I'd understand. Start of Summer and all. This is a five-round debate, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he just couldn't post in time. I ask that the voters take this into consideration if he comes back, and that you not dock him for conduct. Until then have some Karmin http://www.youtube.com...
Detention in School Actually Serves a Higher Purpose

My opponent feels that completing work is not educational because a teacher is not instructing the student during the process; this notion is false. I complete self study all the time. I am capable of purchasing a text book, reading the book, and completing the book assignments and this process has been educational for me. My opponent asks, "Would effectiveness and serving the higher purpose not be contributing the same? " Maybe, but so what? Effectiveness was not the topic so, as I stated in the first round, it is not at issue here. Conclusion: I upheld the resolution presented by the instigator and Con's negative case does nothing to warrant a negation. I showed that detention serves the higher purpose of continuing education by forcing a student to study in a supervised environment. This aspect of continuing education differentiates detention from other forms of punishment and satisfies the agreed upon definition of "higher purpose". This resolution has been upheld. Very Truly Yours, Sherlockmethod.
Detention in School Actually Serves a Higher Purpose

First; "Simply completing work is educational" I argue that it is not educational because there is no teacher instructing you on what to do. Yes, doing wok des serve higher purpose, but if you don't have an instructor and don't know what you're doing, its a set back. Second; "...does nothing to satisfy the con position which states that detention serves no higher purpose. Effectiveness is not the issue here." Would effectiveness and serving the higher purpose not be contributing the same?
Detention in School Actually Serves a Higher Purpose

Point 1: "Yet I ask, how des this further their education? In detention, you are simply completing work, you are not being instructed or taught by a teacher. Therefore, I still stand to believe the Humiliation serves as the best solution to fulfill a higher purpose, because with humiliation, you will most likely stay in the same classroom, with a teacher explaining things." Response: Simply completing work is educational. The punishment is the work and the higher purpose of furthering education is satisfied by completing assignments. A student who does not finish the whole assignment can not be said to be receiving more academic education that another who does all the assigned problems. Even if the student is without a specific teacher, an educator is present. I will fully concede just for the purposes of this debate that humiliation is more effective or even the best solution, but this stipulation does nothing to satisfy the con position which states that detention serves no higher purpose. Effectiveness is not the issue here. Point 2: "If it convinces them not to misbehave, then they will carry on with good behavior and not have to be sent to detention, which, does the opposite of fulfill a higher purpose." Response: The forms of punishment I listed are all designed to discourage future misbehavior. In looking for a higher purpose, I went past mere punishment and found detention does more than just punish or attempt to prevent future bad acts, it actually serves as a punishment allowing for educational materials to be an inherent part of the punishment. No other punishment provides this academic requirement. Even if a student avoids future misbehavior as a secondary cause of embarrassment, this has nothing to do with the higher purpose of continuing education in relation to detention.
Detention in School Actually Serves a Higher Purpose

First, I would like to apologize for taking so long to reply Second; "I listed the different types of punishment to show how each fails to achieve the higher purpose of furthering education in and of itself; detention, on the other hand, does further education and you agreed that a student in detention must study in some capacity" Yet I ask, how des this further their education? In detention, you are simply completing work, you are not being instructed or taught by a teacher. Therefore, I still stand to believe the Humiliation serves as the best solution to fulfill a higher purpose, because with humiliation, you will most likely stay in the same classroom, with a teacher explaining things. Third; "I don't care if such a punishment convinces the student to not misbehave. I am only concerned with whether it serves the higher purpose of continuing education, and you agree it does. This is the debate topic and you just upheld the resolution as the Con position" If it convinces them not to misbehave, then they will carry on with good behavior and not have to be sent to detention, which, does the opposite of fulfill a higher purpose. Fourth; "The fact that detention, by definition, is more than just punishment and requires study time is the higher purpose. With all due respect, you accepted this definition" I realize this now, and would like to apologize for challenging the definition I allowed for you to make. ---debatek3
Detention in School Actually Serves a Higher Purpose

After reading Con's second round response, I found no convincing evidence allowing me to abandon the Pro position. The resolution, at this point, has been upheld. Point 1: "I accept your definition of Detention and ‘Higher Purpose'" Response: Excellent! I hate semantics. Point 2: "[W]ho is not to say ‘Placing a student in front of the class with a hat that says ‘creationist' or ‘dunce' Wouldn't have an effect? " Response: I never stated that such actions would have no effect. On the contrary, I'm sure some effect would occur but I simply do not care about that effect. I made clear the effectiveness of the various types of punishment is irrelevant to your proposed debate topic. I listed the different types of punishment to show how each fails to achieve the higher purpose of furthering education in and of itself; detention, on the other hand, does further education and you agreed that a student in detention must study in some capacity. Even if you show that public ridicule serves the higher purpose of furthering education, such a position does nothing to show that detention is incapable of such a position and this, detention, is the debate topic. Point 3: "Yes, detention does serve the purpose of getting some form of educational work complete, but does it really convince the student not to misbehave? " Response: I don't care if such a punishment convinces the student to not misbehave. I am only concerned with whether it serves the higher purpose of continuing education, and you agree it does. This is the debate topic and you just upheld the resolution as the Con position. Point 4: "At what point did you define higher purpose to be completing something educational. (sic)" Response: I made clear that furthering education was the higher purpose. Doing something educational is more than just mere punishment. Detention is a punishment, unlike the others listed, that requires, by definition, study time in a controlled environment. The studying or writing, etc (I went over this in my first round) is a task that the schools are assigned regardless of punishment. The fact that detention, by definition, is more than just punishment and requires study time is the higher purpose. With all due respect, you accepted this definition. Point 5: "Public Humiliation is the best form of punishment. " Response: I don't care as the best form of punishment is not the topic. I do not agree with the opinion piece, but I have no need to address it as it is off topic. Point 6: "Thus, if Detention does not convince the student to quit misbehaving, is it ultimately fulfilling a higher purpose? " Response: Yes, maybe not the purpose you wish it to serve, but forcing a controlled study environment after school hours to make up for the loss of this time in class due to misbehavior serves the higher purpose of continuing education, and you agree already that detention does this very thing. Conclusion: I have rebutted all points relevant to this debate topic. At this point, the resolution is upheld.