BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ninjas are superior to spartans

A few responses to m opponents attacks before I move on to voter issues. First, an issue I would like to clear up a quickly as possible to avoid any misleading remarks, I HAVE attacked my opponents case, THROUGH my framework. My opponent has spent most of his responses trying to bring down my framework. I have attacked his case and defended my case simultaneously. Now, my opponent has claimed that armor should not be a factor in this case, since a ninja can pick up any armor he or she sees fit. However, since armor is clearly NOT a factor in stealth (you could even argue that it hinders the ability to move around silently and so forth. ) Stealth is my opponents contention, yet it seems he wants to say that stealth is optional. To this I can only say that you cant have your cake and eat it too. .. If a ninja uses stealth, then the ninja can't use armor; It really is as simple as that. My opponent mentioned the fact doctors are present after a battle, however he ignores the fact that the Spartans had knowledgeable doctors in the age which at the time was at the cutting edge of health care. The discoveries made by Spartans are far more significant than anything Ninjas have contributed to modern medicine. Finally my opponents suggested alternative framework is flawed and does not take into account any exterior factors. While a ninja can use stealth, there is no reason why a Spartan can't and there is no reason why a Ninja can't use straightforward warfare. My opponents framework is abound with these types of flaws and loopholes. We need a way of judging this case that will pit the two warriors in a fair and unbiased manner. My framework does this, and my opponent has not met it. Finally, my opponent has made claims that I have not attacked all of his contentions. .. To this I can only say that I have and if the judge cares to do so, he or she can clearly see that this claim is not grounded. To conclude: My opponent did not attack my value, he has not mentioned my second contention, and he has not met my framework. For this the vote should clearly go to the Con side.
Ninjas are superior to spartans

In response to my opponents claim that fighting is not the better way to prove that aomeone is superior to another, I'd like to say that since the MAIN FUNCTION of a spartan and a ninja is to engage in violent conflicts, how superior the two are should in fact be judged by how effectively they fufill their main functions. My opponent used debaters as an example of a situation where fighting would not prove superiority. To this I can only say: of course. The main function of a debater is to debate. I am only setting up a fair framework to judge these two warriors. They could also be judged by how well they knit, but this would be irrelevant to what their main function is. Therefore I must urge my judges to disregard what my opponent has stated about this in his attack of my value criterion. In his response to my first contention, my opponent claimed that since spartan armor is heavy, it would therefore be useless in stealth. Stealth is simply a function of combat, however. It is one way to achieve an ultimate goal. It is NOT, however the only way to achieve a goal and this is what my opponent does not seem to understand. While a ninja may achieve one thing one way, a Spartan can achieves the goal through another way. Since these two ways are equally valid (since they both all lead to achieving the goal), my opponents statement that since armor is useless in stealth is true, but irrelavent. Armor does provide an obvious advantage, it protects the wearer. This is an advantage that only a spartan can have since a ninja can only use stealth. My point is that since a spartan can only have this advantage, it makes the spartan superior. My opponent claimed in his response to my second contention that I am putting ninjas in the place of spartans. No, I am only trying to set up a clear framework, which if my opponent acknoweldged we could both be avoiding some of the confusion we are having. He also states that there is no way to determine a spartan will win in a battle. He gives the example of the American Revolution, saying that this proves there is no way to determine who will win a battle. However, this particular eample is clearly irrelevant. Both sides in the Amreican Revolution did not employ stealth tactics, they actually employed simple warfare, much like a Spartan. Would the Britans have won if they used Stealth? Such a question would be more relevant to the case. My opponent claims I did not entriely attack his first contention. I did; I used a point he made in the argument to try to bring down the argument as a whole. To end: my opponent states that matching ninja verus spartan as a whole. However, since my opponent has not offered up an alternative way to judge the two warriors, he essentially agrees. Therefore I must urge the judges to vote for the Con side. Thank you.
Its good that restaurants ban smoking indoors

Lets start off with " It's none of your business what somebody wishes to put into their body." When did i mention that it was my business? I really don't care if you smoke or not, this is about that being brought into restaurants. By me saying that i don't think people should smoke in restaurants, means that i want to control what people put in their body? No! This is a senseless and un-factual accusation that was not relevant to this discussion. Now lets go to "That is an opinion not an argument. " Yes it is my opinion. Shouldn't my opinion be in my opening statement? Why was that up for criticism? Finally lets look at "nobody forces you go to places that allow smoking." No they don't, and I didn't say that anyone did. This was a very flawed and feelings based first argument from my opponent. I would like to expand on "nobody forces you go to places that allow smoking." No, people don't. But what if all restaurants allowed smoking indoors? Where would the majority of the country go if they wanted to eat out? Why should the people who don't smoke, be "punished" by halving to share a space with smokers? I say, let the people who have the habit, go outside. That way they don't bother others with their habit. Only 18.1% of Americans smoke according to the american lung association. Why should 81.9% of america suffer from that? The majority of the country does not smoke. There fore the decision should be to the advantage of them, not the smokers. They can smoke in their house, outside, in many public places. Why where people eat? Here are some facts to back up my argument. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. A 2009 report by the Institute of Medicine confirmed that secondhand smoke is a cause of heart attacks, and concluded that relatively brief exposure could trigger a heart attack. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 deaths from lung cancer and 22,700 to 69,600 deaths from heart disease each year. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke in a restaurant are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces. Now why should people be exposed to this while they are eating? Like i said before, the large majority of the country is non-smoking, so why should they half to be exposed to this, and where would they go to eat out? Sure some restaurants could have smoking, but not the majority. Because that's not fair to the people who don't have that habit. Thank you.
Its good that restaurants ban smoking indoors

I accept , The Burden of Proof is on Pro to prove that it's good that restaurants ban smoking indoors, I'm simply here to counter-argue. 'I believe that smoking is a very bad habit' Of course it's a bad habit it has been scientifically proven but how does that matter at all . It's none of your business what somebody wishes to put into their body. 'I think that it is a good thing that most resaurants ban it' That is an opinion not an argument. 'Second hand smoke is very unhealthy. ' Indeed it is and therefore nobody forces you go to places that allow smoking. Sorry if I appeared to harsh in this debate.
Its good that restaurants ban smoking indoors

Going off my opponents argument about how it is not my business. No, it is not my business and i cannot tell owners what to do. But that is not what we are debating here. This isn't literal where i am saying that we should or shouldn't tell owners what to do. this is about how it is good if a restaurant bans smoking. Not should we make owners turn their restaurants into non-smoking restaurants. Its the idea of it. I also am not telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies like i said earlier. If i said "we should ban smoking" then i would be telling people what they can and cannot be putting in their bodies. In this situation, it is simply that you shouldn't put that in your bodies HERE. Not that you shouldn't do it, just that you cant do it HERE. There is a big difference. My opponent says "on a property that is not yours and that which you do not own and are not entitled to have a say on" Why are we still talking about this? No it is not my property, i am merely arguing why they SHOULD make it smoke free. Not why they NEED to. My opponent said " for all restaurants to ban smoking is certainly not fair." Like i said in my earlier argument, and i quote "Sure, some restaurants could have smoking" My opponent must have been mistaken or mis-read my argument. For i did not say that all restaurants should ban smoking. My opponent states " it is discriminatory against smokers who now would have to leave the property to smoke " Really? if that is discriminatory, then wouldn't it be discriminatory against people who don't smoke, to allow smoking in a restaurant? They would "now would have to leave the property" as you said earlier about smokers. You could argue that anything is discriminatory if it leaves someone out. So my statement that "not all restaurants would need to be non-smoking", pretty much makes my opponents entire last paragraph untrue, as he was arguing to the point that all restaurants would be non-smoking. The reason i stated facts about second hand smoke was because i wanted to let the reader know, how dangerous second hand smoke is, and how it would effect people if they were exposed to it in a restaurant. My opponent says in the comment section "A public place is different as it not owned by a private individual , Restaurants , pubs and such are not really 'public places' therefore it should be up to the owner to decide how to run his business." Did i use the definition of a public place wrongly? I know a restaurant is owned by someone, and therefore it is their decision. Like i have said many times, this isn't about forcing owners to do this, its the idea that it SHOULD be this way. Thank you.
Its good that restaurants ban smoking indoors

'When did i mention that it was my business? I really don't care if you smoke or not, this is about that being brought into restaurants. ' By saying it's not your business I was litterily saying it is not your business therefore you shouldn't have the right to command someone how to take care of their company. 'by me saying that i don't think people should smoke in restaurants, means that i want to control what people put in their body? No! This is a senseless and un-factual accusation that was not relevant to this discussion. ' It is completly relevant , You are indeed telling them what they can put into their bodies on a property that is not yours and that which you do not own and are not entitled to have a say on. You are basically saying as long as i'm alone on my property I can do whatever I want with it but when you come along I can't. This is what the government is doing right now. 'Shouldn't my opinion be in my opening statement? Why was that up for criticism? ' I apologise for mistaking your opening statement as your main piece of argumentation. 'Finally lets look at "nobody forces you go to places that allow smoking." No they don't, and I didn't say that anyone did. This was a very flawed and feelings based first argument from my opponent.' . You are arguing for it being 'good'. According to the English Oxford Dictionary the definition of good is 'To be desired or approved of:'(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) You did not state that good is defined in this debate as being desired by you therefore we are speaking in a general sense, for all restaurants to ban smoking is certainly not fair not only is it unfair and undesirable for the owner of the property who of course would want to appear more customer friendly, it is dicriminatory against smokers who now would have to leave the property to smoke . If there were no laws against smoking in places such as restuarants then there would be competition , you could go to a restuarant that allows smoking or does not allow it , People would have freedom of choice and wouldn't that be more desirable and morally right (Worth of societies approval) ?.
Do these hoes love chief sosa

It has been clearly proven that these hoes also love the members of the Glo Gang, including but not limited to, Lil Durk. BigGucciSOSA300 has been empirically proven to affect the aforementioned "these hoes" when under the influence of the lean, which, contrary to popular belief, DOES NOT help French Montana sleep. Your previous statement is false due to the fact that chief Keef does in fact have multiple Rarris and Rovers as stated in "Love Sosa', end empirically these hoes must love Chief Sosa due to the fact that those are next lyrics in his song/statement.
The Internet does more harm than good.

As I said in the second round, internet is not 100% safe. When human kind discovered fire, we learned how to handle it, and created mechanisms to contain its dangers (firefighters, hydrants, fire extinguishers). Same with cars, people are taught how to handle them, and we have mechanisms to avoid their risks (seat belts, air-bags, traffic laws). The same thing is happening with the internet. It seems scarier, because transformations are happening too fast, and our culture is not keeping up with it. But laws and habits are, slowly, changing, and will eventually catch up. We will get used to explain to our children how to verify the credibility of information found online, and why they shouldn't trust everybody in the internet, the same way our parents told us not to get in a car with strangers or take drinks from someone we don't know. In regard of the addiction argument, addictions have always existed, and will most likely continue to exist for a long, long time. Anything that is exciting or pleasurable can develop into an addiction, not only substances[1]. Everybody has heard of someone with a gambling problem, or someone who is an workaholic, but there are also people addicted to sex[2], porn[3], buying[4], eating[5], exercising[6], almost every behavior can become addictive. Any of this activities can be healthily enjoyed by most people, but some will inevitably get addicted to them. This does not mean that the behavior by itself is inherently harmful. In conclusion, I believe the internet have brought enormous benefits for the mankind, and will continue to bring progressively more as we get adapted to this new reality. I would like to thank PRO for the healthy debate we had, and thank the voters who took the time to read it all. [1] http://www.egms.de... [2] http://www.siecus.org... [3] http://men.webmd.com... [4] http://ocd.about.com... [5] Kessler, David A. The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite (2009) ISBN 1-60529-785-2 [6] Alexander, C. 1998. Cutting weight, losing life. News & Observer, February 8, 1998, A.1. Retrieved October 5, 2006, from ProQuest database.
The Internet does more harm than good.

It is true that the Internet has not completely brought harm to the society. It is true that the Internet has improved the lives of others and even saved people from disaster. but, we can not just overlook the harm and trust the Internet completely. Con talked about the good that the online support groups can offer the aid that community would never be able too. but have we ever thought if the websites are actually reliable? I assume that the con refers online support groups as the place where people can share their experiences, feelings and wisdom.A comfort zone for people dealing with the same health challenges. But can we really trust those websites completely and make use of the information there?the Internet is freedom of information[1]. we can publish whatever we want. we create a group and ask for donations because we make others think that we are reliable,trustable but what others do not know is that we have just published a whole chunk of unreliable facts to aid people. and we just receive the donations from them happily and put inside our pockets. example of unreliable health website can be found here[2]. i'm saying this because people do not know how the Internet has turned from good to bad. the Internet has unreliable websites. students learn and do research through the internet. thanks to the internet many things can be done easily. but not all the things online can be accepted. humans are ignorant. we may not know if the website's we are reading now is reliable. other than unreliable websites,there have also been many cases of online addiction. we often find games as a way to escape from reality. we find games as fun and thrill. as we rise to a new level,the more tempted we are to continue discover the games till it ends. but we may have never thought that game addiction could actually cause death. according to a newspaper article,a korean high school student was found dead in front of the computer for playing a popular games without sleeping and balance diet [3] and [4]for more same cases. Therefore,i believe that internet has brought more harm than good. references:[1]http://www.bmj.com... [2]http://quackfiles.blogspot.sg... [3]http://www.time.com... [4]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
The Internet does more harm than good.

Internet is not 100% safe. No one ever said that it was. Neither is fire. But people everywhere still use it for cooking, to generate electricity, to heat themselves, etc. Expecting anything, anything at all, to be always 100% safe is naivety, if not foolishness. But still, PRO talks about the lives that are scarred because of the internet. But what about the lives that are saved? Reference one [1] lists 10 stunning examples of people whose lives were saved by the internet, from a man who used his smartphone to help himself during an earthquake, to a woman whose webcam viewers rescued her after a horse attack. This kind of benefit is easily observable in natural disasters. More than 2.5 billion dollars were donated to Haiti to aid victims of the 2010 earthquake [2]. Countless lives were saved. This is observable in many other disasters, like the 2004 tsunami and 2005 Katrina hurricane. And this is observable even on a daily basis. Non-profit organizations get a lot of their money from online donations. An estimated 22 billion dollars were donated in 2010, only in the US[3]. And this figure is growing fast. Also, there are support groups online which are way more accessible than their offline counterparts. Particularly for special cases of problems, be it for its rarity or because the afflicted person is ashamed of the condition, online support groups can offer the aid that community would never be able to. I believe these argument shall suffice for showing that the internet can be a fountain of good deeds. I still believe the main benefit of the internet is the universal availability of knowledge, but as PRO insisted on arguing over its harm on people in need, I believe the arguments I showed in this round have better deconstructed this false line of thought. References: [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.reliefweb.int... [3] http://www.npengage.com...
The Internet does more harm than good.

I would like to bring your attention to the case of online sexual predators. Many of us make use of the Internet's facilities to visit websites such as Facebook and Twitter. These websites have allowed us to communicate and get to know people who we are not know of. But have we ever considered if these websites on the Internet are reliable enough to be trusted. For example, many of us have thought that pictures being posted on facebook can be deleted permanently. however,no one knows that albeit though the pictures have been deleted on facebook but the pictures on another websites which supports facebook are not deleted. Can we still trust the internet with our personal information and chat with strangers online? According to a newspaper article,"In a recent survey of young Internet users aged 10 to 17, one in five reported they had received unwanted sexual solicitations online, ranging from sexually suggestive comments to strangers asking them to meet them in the real world for sex." The internet is supposed to be safe for the users. Putting ourselves in the victims' shoes,they have to through medical care by psychologists because the online predators have caused a long-term scars in both their hearts and brains which known as trauma. The positive impacts of the internet are short-term. Everyone could be a victim! so,is the internet still safe and does good for us? Therefore, i am strongly agree that the internet does more harm than good. resources:http://arstechnica.com... http://abcnews.go.com...
The Internet does more harm than good.

I will defend that the internet has brought vastly more benefits than losses. Attributing these negative impacts to the internet is the same as saying that the advent of the alphabet allowed people to write insults, and therefore is a bad thing. In the same fashion, the revolution of possibilities brought by the internet introduced a wide variety of benefits which far exceeds the harm it may have caused. This very debate we are having is possible only because the internet exists to connect us, otherwise we would most likely never even acknowledge each other existences. Internet brings people all over the world together, contributing to a deepest understanding and collaboration which is accounting for enormous innovative leaps in every area of human knowledge. From curing diseases to dealing with house bugs, every area of expertise can now be accessed and improved in the comfort of your own house. And that is a wonderful thing.