BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should stop reading books and use the internet instead

I am sorry about my small sample size, I don"t play many video games. Anyways, as you said above "There are also countless movies that bring tears to your eyes, crying because you can almost feel as if it were happening to you. With that said, there are movies and to shows that offer the same experience as books but sometimes even more emotional." This may be true. However, tv shows leave little to the imagination. They show you exactly what happens. When you read, you can almost "see" what is happening in the story. Sure, with a tv show you can try to imagine what happens next, you can also do this with books. What happens next? "...but in the end, it is whether we can relate to it or not." This goes for books and movies. Anyways, thanks for this debate and may the best man win!
People should stop reading books and use the internet instead

My question for you now is, why are you taking such a small sample size? "What about the Walking Dead?". There also many books that are equally useless as the game you mentioned. "Books don't just stimulate your imagination" but "also offer an escape". You do realize that many people also use the internet as an escape from reality right? What you are saying is extremely cliche and said by someone a long time ago. As you said above, certain books take you with the characters and allow the readers experience the story but in the end, it is whether we can relate to it or not. There are also countless movies that brings tears to your eyes, crying because you can almost feel as if it were happening to you. With that said, there are movies and tv shows that offer the same experience as books but sometimes even more emotional.
People should stop reading books and use the internet instead

At my school, we have sites that are blocked. Yet kids still find ways around this and play games. Therefore, these programs don"t necessarily work. Yes, some games may not be killing brain cells, but what about the Walking Dead? What does that do to your mind? Books don"t just stimulate your imagination. For some people who are constantly picked on or just wonder about their lives, books are an escape. I have been reading since I was young. I can"t even fathom a world without books. And I know I am not alone. As you stated above, this debate was improving your imagination. However, you can"t be dead to the world debating as you can reading. Certain books, they take you with the characters. You can feel as though the story happened and that you were there when it did.
People should stop reading books and use the internet instead

In what you said above, kids will abuse the privilege of having the internet. However, with proper restrictions using programs provided on the internet, parents will be able to prevent internet abuse. To be honest, if abusing the internet is your main concern, there are numerous monitoring softwares out there that can help you keep an eye on your kids' activities online while doing your own thing. Furthermore, video games are not completely detrimental to kids' minds. In fact, games like Fortnite (fps games) improve hand eye coordination, creativity (ways to create things or beat opponents), and create bonds with friends (if they play as well). Despite the games being extremely addicting, parents should be able to restrict access to those games systematically (this can be seen in many Asian families). Books are indeed great for stimulating our imagination (as I previously mentioned in my first argument), however, they are limited in terms of information. Also, books are not the only way to stimulate imagination, composing this argument improves my imagination/creativity, simply meditating or exercising can also stimulate imagination (when people are bored, they imagine). In addition, despite the number of useless websites on the web, you have failed to account for the number of actually useful ones. When composing a research paper, you would need at least 5-8 books to gather all the information you need and you also need to read through a lot of unrelated information. As I have stated in my first argument, on the internet (on reliable sites), all you have to do is simply click ctrl + f to find specific pieces of information that would aid you in proving your argument (pun not intended). This is much more efficient than flipping through hundreds of pages of information. Your 2nd to last statement that books are better for entertainment is merely a preference. How many people now just binge watch Netflix? Would they say that books are better for entertainment? Finally, your last statement is completely false, the intelligence of young children compared to 50 years ago has been a dramatic increase. The increase is around 3 iq points every decade.
People should stop reading books and use the internet instead

As you said, yes, this is the Information Age. However, that is no excuse to let books die off. In any situation, kids will abuse the privilege of having the internet. They play games instead. They learn nothing from these games. One example of such games, is Fortnite. All you do is run around and shoot people. When you use books to research, there is nothing to distract you. No annoying ads, no way to access games, and more. All of this makes books easier to use. You say the books are limited. Books are only limited if you cannot use your imagination. While you get more results on the internet, how many of those sites are trash? Publishing a book costs a bit more money then making a website, so books are generally more reliable. Besides, books are better for entertainment purposes to. As my dear mother always used to tell me, "The bright lights fr9m staring at a screen all day is killing your brain cells." And I agree with her. How else can you explain the drop in the intelligence of young kids.
People should stop reading books and use the internet instead

We are now in the 21st century, otherwise known as the information age. It is without a doubt that we are learning faster than previous generations due to the easily accessible information online. What has caused us to learn faster? Books? Most definitely not. Although books are great for stimulating imagination, when trying to learn things, they are often inefficient and limited to some extent. An example of this would be prior to the internet. If we wanted to know something, we would have to go to the library, flip through the catalog, find a book, and actually flip through it to find the information. However, on the internet, we can easily access numerous different sources at once and find specific information we want by simply clicking ctrl + f. Furthermore, there are various interactive learning sources online to aid us. In a research conducted in 2017, interactive learning is more efficient than simply reading as it actually trains our brain to think the way it's intended to be (and sometimes help with logic). Although one may argue that it's beneficial to allow our brains to wonder during reading and discover, one's brain can often confuse oneself and impede progress.
should men wear tights, Speedos. Bike shorts and lycra

It's fine I don't regret entering in this debate. About the TMI thing, Idc at least you're keeping it real. I'm not those type of people who are hypersensitive and uptight about someone expressing themselves even in this particular debate topic. Do whatever works for you and whatever makes you happy, Like I said I'm not all the way against tights if someone is an athlete (like football, Or a swimmer) then they are going to need tights, But I just don't agree with wearing it for fashion reasons and parading around in it, But that's just my opinion who am I to judge you or anyone else who likes to do what you do? As long as you are a great person and are kind to others. As long as you aren't a murderer or a pedophile or anything like that. Society is so brainwashed that it perpetuates this agenda of men can't wear tights or that makes them gay. It's stupid. Even men who are actually gay, People look at that as an abomination but turn a blind eye to murderers and people who are actually bad. But there's nothing I can do to change how you are, I see what you are going for and that's a good thing you are going in a positive direction
should men wear tights, Speedos. Bike shorts and lycra

(Round 2 does not count) - Sorry I actually thought you gave up but after reading your comment, I understand. And yeah I'm really nice and humble. I'm a positive person. Even though this is a debating website I try not to offend others no matter what or to be rude. I just discuss the topic at hand, Not the individual who created the topic. It's simply a debate, No hard feelings, Plus it's fun. I'm also new to this website, So yeah. First decent debate I had. The one I had previously, Not so much lol. When you said "took me down gently" haha thanks for all the compliments and praise. I have a very strong opinion and I look at things through all angles, And both sides. I don't want you taking it as me being rude or anything though - but you did say "gently" so I know you know I'm just chill and mellow. About your tablet - It's fine I understand. I always number my points, So everything can be neat and in line - I know you already told me your situation, So sorry that my response was too long for you to see, And you don't have to number your points and put spaces in your response like I did, It's fine. Do whatever is comfortable and whatever works for you. About the health and modesty - thanks for explaining those. I understand now. I didn't mean to offend you in my Point 5 at all. After reading your response, It confirms that you are indeed not "insecure" and that you're very comfortable with your body. I understand everything else you said in your response about the tights. I am indifferent and I have no responses
should men wear tights, Speedos. Bike shorts and lycra

Your too kind. I think You took me down gently. Best of luck for sure, Difficult topic. I think I may have conceded some points to you. I possibly can't actually disagree with some or most points you make. However. It is probs too much to go into each valid point you did make. You present a good argument. I think what I meant about being proud and courageous wasn't to actually say there are not other ways. You are correct and defended that brilliantly. I just thought as your retorts where numbered I should at least space mine out. I was thinking about all the online whoosy people who feel aggrieved and defensive in blogs about the flak they cop for wearing tights. It can get quite nasty out there. You were civil and very confident. To that end I must take my hat off to you sir and without conceding defeat I would like to add some more additional clarification. As you asked " please enlighten me". I agreed with your points. My appreciation of the female form doesn't extend to camel toe though. That can be too much as I am sure 100% of all college girls do not like seeing my or any mans junk in the same fashion. There are debates about girls being *o's and looking cheap in tights and that is also interesting. I only use tights for sports but I do continue to parade around in my sports gear near or to and fro from events or runs. Wearing speedo's at the beach is fine but in a superb street far from water it's underpants. I am trying to remember your points as I have a small tablet and it is old and cannot easily go back to previous. Not an excuse. Health reasons are the constriction of the balls and the heat in nylon. Can cause some probs. The cooling down of sperm and the dropping of the testes is to safe guard against over heating. Modesty is the issue I think allot of debate go on about men in tights and has stayed stagnant for decades. I tis all about feeling insecure which you also mentioned. I am only expressing the sports tights argument here not related to guys wearing other tight stretch jeans or other types of clothing that make us guys look hot. So the context I argue is only in relation to sports attire. Not withstanding the many and varied other ways to b courageous and sexy 'et all. I feel very confident about my body and don;t feel insecure or astanged as you t of my parts. Needing to get attention. At least I think I do! Your point made very well. I am of the opinion that most guys would not attempt to wear anything like what I
Rapists should be castrated if proven guilty.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment Under the 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment is restricted [1]. Castration as a punishment for a crime is both unusual (not common), and cruel( obvious reasons) it is prohibited[p1] If my name is Mikal you should vote for me[p2] My name is Mikal[c] You should vote for meCostsThis is true through all countries, but the amount it would cost to implement my adversaries stance is impractical. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
The Bible is not absolute and the Bible is not final.

Pro would have you believe, and only after he has deliberately changed the scripture, that these are words and ideas from me. When contrary to what the world teaches, these are in fact God's Words, not mine! He (pro) says: "Father Son Holy Spirit" However, scripture say's: 1John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." It is the testimony of the scriptures (what the scriptures teach), that it is indeed the testimony of Jesus that is God. As was shown in previous quotes of scripture. Rev 19:10 "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." God, according to scripture is the testimony of Jesus. These are the words of the bible not mine! Pro says: The Second Person of the Holy Trinity was the Word made Flesh. The Bible is not Jesus just like the Bread of Communion here on Earth is not the actual flesh of Christ. It is not what the Roman Catholics say- Con (me) agrees, it is not as the catholics teach, nor like their idea of the bread being the transubstantiated body. According to scripture, His words are indeed spirit though! John 6:63-64 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him." The bible says what it says, it is in fact final and absolute just as Pro has conceded concerning Jesus Christ. We as Christians are called to believe, and nothing less. Faith is the proof of this. Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
The Bible is not absolute and the Bible is not final.

The Bible is not a 'WHO' as Con is implying. The Bible is an inanimate object. Only superstition would say that the Bible is a person. Christianity says that there is a Trinity- Father Son Holy Spirit The Second Person of the Holy Trinity was the Word made Flesh. The Bible is not Jesus just like the Bread of Communion here on Earth is not the actual flesh of Christ. It is not what the Roman Catholics say- And the Bible is not what some Protestants, (and others) say that it is. The Bible is a compilations of books that are bound for the fire. The destination of God's Word is our hearts. The destination of the Bible is the fire. (Fire = Hell)
The Bible is not absolute and the Bible is not final.

Con says that 'legality is therefore irrelevant'. But before we delve into irrelevancy we should address Con's opening- Con, sorry but you are in the wrong debate. This debate is about the Bible. Jesus of Nazareth is not the Bible. Well have you said that Christ is the alpha and the omega. But the debate is about whether or not the Bible is the alpha and the omega. And I am saying that the Bible is not the first Word. And I am saying that the Bible is not the last Word. The 'First' and the 'Last' are reserved for Christ alone. If we make the Bible the first and the last then that is idol worship. The Bible cannot be absolute and final because the only absolute and final is God. The Bible is not God. Jesus of Nazareth is the Word that became flesh. He is absolute and final. Now let's take a look at Con's 'irrelevancy' statement- When the Law of Moses was written it was for all intents and purposes the Bible. There may have been other written material, the book of Job for instance and maybe some other writings but basically the writings of Moses was/is the centerpiece to the Old Testament. If there is one thing that is relevant in our lives it is the fact that we are going to die. Nothing could be more relevant. And the Law and the Prophets says that the soul that sinneth shall die, (Ezekiel 18:20). Now is the Ezekiel statement- "The soul that sinneth shall die" the truth or is it a lie? It seems so simple. Everyone sins and everyone dies. So on the surface the Ezekiel statement "The soul that sinneth shall die" looks like it is the truth. But what does the Ezekiel statement imply? The Ezekiel statement implies that the soul that does not sin will not die. But we know that this is a lie because Jesus of Nazareth knew no sin. Jesus of Nazareth never sinned in any way. And yet Jesus of Nazareth died. Worse yet, Jesus of Nazareth was murdered. Worse yet, Jesus of Nazareth was murdered by the very Law of Moses.
The Bible is not absolute and the Bible is not final.

The scriptures clearly say "till all be fulfilled", not one or two but ALL! Matt 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." It also clearly says that the law is a "shadow of good things to come", legality is therefore irrelevant! Heb 10:1-4 "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." When someone says that it shall stand for ever, that is a finality! Isa 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
The Bible is not absolute and the Bible is not final.

(Pro reserves the right to rebut Con's opening in argument 3) A. The Old Testament is not absolute and it is not final: 1. The Law of Moses a. The Law of Moses was forced to make allowances for divorce. But originally divorce was not included in the Mosaic system. Therefore The Law of Moses was adjustable on the issue of divorce b. The Law of Moses included animal sacrifice. Animal sacrifice is now against the law. Therefore The Law of Moses is an illegal body 2. The Prophets a. Once the prophecy is fulfilled it loses its value. In the eternal state prophecy is meaningless. b. Prophecy is only given because of the separation of God and Man. Once the breach is repaired then God and Man are on speaking terms face to face. c. Whenever Mankind repents the prophecy is automatically nullified.
The Bible is not absolute and the Bible is not final.

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:2 "The same was in the beginning with God." John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:4 "In him was life; and the life was the light of men." John 1:5 "And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Colossians 1:17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:19 "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 2:10 "And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:" That sounds like the Word of God / Jesus is pretty absolute to me! If you believe that is! Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. Revelation 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. And well; that seems pretty final to me as well! It really does not have to be very hard if you just believe scripture and not man!!
The Bible is not absolute and the Bible is not final.

The Pro position, (mine) is that the Bible has never been absolute or final. Parts of the Bible may or may not be inspired, (that is up to the reader to decide). Most of what passes for an absolute is pure superstition. We do not have to fear the Bible. We can do anything we want with it. It is nothing more than paper and ink or even less than paper. It certainly cannot stand the test of time and has proven to be mostly hyperbole, especially the Old Testament part. This debate is in four sections as follows- 1 Acceptance and opening 2 The Law of Moses and the Prophets 3 The New Testament 4 Summation
Death Battle: Amaterasu vs Celestia

These gods of the sun have watched over their subjects for time immemorial. But which one is the more powerful guardian? Amaterasu, the Sun Goddess from Okami, or Celestia, the Alicorn Princess of the Sun from MLP? Rules: 1. Only Amaterasu and Celestia can participate in this battle. No outside help. 2. You have 24 hours to make an argument this time. Arguments Round 1 is optional. Do not expect this to be an easy debate. 3. In case you weren't aware, we're referring to Amaterasu from Capcom's Okami, and Celestia from MLP: Friendship is Magic. 4. No trolling, semantics, or kritiks. If you try any, you forfeit the debate to me. 5. We'll mainly be arguing from 4 categories; Abilities, Durability, Agility, and Equipment. I'll let the Contender pick between Amaterasu and Celestia. Here are the wiki pages: Amaterasu; http://okami.wikia.com... Celestia; http://mlp.wikia.com... You will state your chosen character in Round 1, but not give any arguments.