BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Facebook is useful for students aged between 14-16 years

I accept your rules and am looking forward to this debate. I actually do use a class page on Facebook but I decided to argue this debate because I thought it would be interesting .I am going to be arguing that Facebook is NOT useful for students aged 14-16. I will list my reasons below1.Facebook is distracting (ads)Facebook has too many ads. As soon as you log in, there will be advertisements for things you are interested. For example if I "liked" Soccer on Facebook, there could be an ad for Soccer cleats. Unsuspecting students will get interested, think about their schoolwork later and then after 2 hours of finding the best deal on "cleats" or whatever item they were interested in. Games and applications are found on Facebook and can be equally distractingAlso, one of Facebook's main income is ads and they knowwhere to put the ads to target users.2.Facebook is distracting (friends)The main reason of Facebook was to connect people from different parts of the world. As soon as you log in to Facebook, the first thing you notice are how many notifications, messages and friend requests. Students will also get drawn to this and could get in to a discusiion over their topic and totally forget about their schoolwork.3. Chat is slow and could crashFacebook chat is frequently laggy and sometimes requires you to refresh the webpage too many times. With 20+ students on a server, with all the teens sending messages quickly, the students won't understand who is speaking and will be unable to communicate with each other. A definite probability would be that it crashes because the system is overloaded.4.Much better providers Nesa Blackboard, Moodle and many others have much better websites designed for an online classroom for students. Facebook is meant to meet people. So why not use the providers that were designed for online classrooms.5.Dangerous people on FacebookIf someone who has not used Facebook before, makes an account and joins Facebook, he will be far behind on how many friends he has. For this reason, he will accept friend requests from random people and random or dangerous people will know his identity and may try to harm him, physically, virtually etc. as in stealing money. Facebook is not a safe website for people 14-16 years should be using.6.Students will see teachers personal lifeWhen a teacher befriends the student, the student will be able to see the teacher's personal life. This is immoral as this violates the teachers privacy. Students do not need to know who their teacher is dating, how many babies they have, their political views. This would be extremely unfair to the teacher.From the reasons I have posted above, I urge you to vote for Con.I look forward to the next round and hope to get a reply from Pro.
Facebook is useful for students aged between 14-16 years

Age group of students-14-16 years Topic-Facebook is useful for students aged between 14-16 years. Rules-Opponent:This will be an 'Open Debate' and the first member to accept my challenge will become my opponent. Category:Education Rounds:There will be a total of 2 rounds of debate. Voting Period:The voting period will last 6 months. Time to Argue:For every round of debate, each debater will have 72 hours to post their argument. Argument Max:Each debater will be allowed to type up to 8,000 characters for every round of debate. Voting Comments:Members voting on this debate are required to provide comments for their vote. Request-I request my opponent to use easy to understand English as I am not a native English speaker. Also my age is 15 so please post your arguments according to my age and fluency in English. My English is neither very good nor very bad. Everyone is welcome to join the debate. Argument- I agree with this statement. 1.Facebook brings people closer by increasing interaction between them. More people mean more views more views mean more knowledge and knowledge is what a student needs. 2.Facebook is Always "On" Sometimes your BFF isn't around and just want human interaction of some kind. Maybe you want to sneak in a moment to see what everyone is up to in between clients at work, or when you're up at 4 a.m. and can't sleep. Regardless of when you want to log in, Facebook is there waiting for you. This can give a sense of comfort and make you feel connected to the world. 3.You can chat with teachers and your friends. We can ask questions or simply answer questions of others. Debates , essay-writing contests and story writing ,etc require a student to have a vast treasure of knowledge and wide range of views. Facebook helps students to increase their knowledge and also help them to see things from different viewpoint. example-A simple example of how facebook helps users to see things from a different viewpoint is this debate itself. In the comments,people from different parts of world can give their views about this topic and thus widening the scope of this debate. 3.It helps to find Those Who Share Your Causes and Hobbies Maybe you're interested in environmental issues. Maybe you want to find someone to swap woodworking tips with. Whatever your special interest, there's likely to be a Facebook page--or a dozen--dedicated to it. These fellow enthusiasts can be a great source of information, advice and support. 4.You can meet different people and learn from their experiences. 5.Facebook can keep your brain fit. Play Online Games As millions can testify, games offered on Facebook can be addictive. They can also be stimulating and fun. Online games, especially those with a time factor, are excellent for brain fitness. I request the opponent to post his views.
On balance a communist government is beneficial to the people.

I agree with your terms. I know that we are supposed to state facts in such debates like this but I will also include my own personal experiences of communism and living under communism which I have done it for 90% of my life. Communism promotes equality with every human being and aims to defeat superiority complexes with and also defeats elitist elements in society. Now you have requested that I do not use any examples of democratic communism which I believe is quite is an attempt to sabotage my argument. Communism does offer the chance of democracy and voting and is quite successful at it too. United States a ferociously capitalist government has a two-party system even though it claims to be a little bit more diverse it isn't and it will always be two parties that offer nothing but exploitation and unnecessary intervention in foreign states. True communist states does not exploit workers and in fact completely destroys the class system rightfully. Capitalism by principal aims to exploit workers and the people so the 'superior' people at the top of the so-called pecking order financially benefit from this. This is common in states such as the United States, Brazil, India, Great Britain and various European nations. Communism promotes fairness and equality which capitalism does not. Everyone is entitled to health care, education, employment and housing for no or little cost. Does this work in capitalism? No, I do not think so.
On balance a communist government is beneficial to the people.

I accept your conditions. I will be using this as a basis for defining communism. http://www.diffen.com...Communism and Socialism will not be confused. I will be of the assumption that the communist nation will be a one party state, as it has been the only attempted method. I do not agree with a shared burden of proof, as you are convincing the audience that communism is superior. Since you have presented communism with no changes, as superior to a capitalist democracy, I will assume you are debating communism at its base form. If you disagree with anything I'm saying, please PM me.
On balance a communist government is beneficial to the people.

Full Resolution On balance, communism a superior political system. BoP is shared - pro has to prove that capitalism is superior, while con has to prove that communism is superior. Definitions On Balance: "Taking everything into consideration; all in all. "[1] Communism: "A political and economic ideology based on communal ownership and the absence of class. "[3] Superior: "Of high quality; high or higher in quality. "[4] Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.
The pen is mightier than the sword

This is why I have won this debate. I have explained that writing, literature, and knowledge are more powerful than brute force, and actually, the most powerful of mankind's weaponry came not from just carving stuff, it came from research and study and writing. Writing built our knowledge base, and it's allowed us to create new things at a fast rate. My opponent has built his argument on wise cracks. That's why he lost. He had poor conduct. And I had a better debate. Please vote PRO. Thank you.
The pen is mightier than the sword

Now on to my argument. The pen is what makes the sword. Swords are forged from the wisdom of the pen. You know what the greatest invention of all time is? Hmm? Let me tell you: it's writing. You see, with the ability to read and write, one can record their thoughts and experiences and allow the masses to ponder over them and eventually learn from them. Knowledge is power. More powerful than anything else in the universe. Reading and writing allows us to combine our minds into one. You see, power is best achieved through exercise. It is built. Exercising our knowledge base is what allowed mankind to eventually build complex things, helped us use math to make calculations, gave us the ability to descend into the sea, into the sky, and into space. It's what can turn a sword into a cannon. Or a cannon into a gun. Or a gun into a nuclear bomb. It is why mankind is becoming more complex and powerful at such a fast rate. Asking if the pen is mightier than the sword is just like asking: Which is stronger, life or fire. Well, at first, fire would be the obvious answer, because life starts basic and weak. Single celled, you know. The fire is still in progress. Overtime, fires may devour and become bigger, but they don't evolve. They don't eventually develop the ability to survive contact with water. Yet, life builds in strength. Life evolves. And overtime, life eventually uses water to defeat fire. And life will come to harness fire, and use it as a slave to carry out it's interests. This principal is no different when it comes to the pen. The pen eventually harnesses the sword to it's own will. The pen is mightier than the sword. And now, for my counterargument "I have a number of hobbies. One of them is fencing, as a joke. I once fought with a pen against a sword. I broke my thumb. " - You did? Lol. No seriously, the pen and the sword aren't literal physical pens and swords. "It has been said that history is written by the winners. Supposing this we are left with implication that though the pen may be a great product for social change it serves mostly at the behest of the sword" - True, but swords are products of work of the pen. It appears I'm out of time. Well, all I have to say is, the power of the sword relies on the power of the pen.
The pen is mightier than the sword

I have a number of hobbies. One of them is fencing, as a joke. I once fought with a pen against a sword. I broke my thumb. The pen is not mightier than the sword. --- It has been said that history is written by the winners. Supposing this we are left with implication that though the pen may be a great product for social change it serves mostly at the behest of the sword. --- The lead up to the Iraq war had a number of journalists and level headed people facing the war mongering jingoism of the Bush administration. If the pen were mightier than the sword, should not the cooler heads have prevailed. -- The fact is the same throughout history, the pens are no match for the swords. The most influential things they can do is write about what the swords did in hindsight.
It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.

Welcome to this debate on whether it should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.Round 1 is for defining the argument. I define compulsory as parallel with the law, recycle as either (a) deliver it to a place where it is recycled, or(b) recycle it yourself.I define waste as anything used and material as anything that is useful for some purposes, such as cloth, bark etc.
It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.

We as a country do a lot to try to recycle, but my opponent's suggestion that we should make an effort to legalize and punish those who do not recycle or reuse *everything* is absurd. There are many things that others can subjectively think are useful but it is irrational to force everyone to think and act the same way. The question here has never been about whether we should recycle or not, but whether it should be a law to recycle *everything* my opponent thinks has even the slightest use instead of just recycling what we do now. My opponent has not given a strong case as to why recycling needs to be changed in such a drastic and excessive way, has not shown a need, and has even agreed that it is expensive and time consuming beyond practicality.
It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.

Thank you for your arguments in this debate. Yes, recycling plants do cost more than they save, but landfills, although quick and cheap, leave the left garbage produce METHANE which is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.My opponents arguments are in bold."Some things have a use, but in order to reuse it, we either have to do a lot of extra work, a lot of extra money, or hurt the environment even more."Even though we may need to use more work and money to recyle useable waste, we will eventually have to ANYWAYS. So, why not start early and stop the bad side of landfills?"My opponent argues that we should make it a LAW, and PUNISH those who do not use or re-use everything that has an additional use, no matter how silly, expensive, or time-wasting it is. "It does not take much time for a person to dump a piece of waste in the recycling bin. Needles can be melted, rotting food can be composted, and leaves can be used to make decorations.Thank you for the wonderful debate we had today.
It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.

Thanks to my opponent for his post: 1. Recycling plants cost more money than they save as a rule. Reusing waste requires work to restore them to usable condition. 2. Some things have a use, but in order to reuse it, we either have to do a lot of extra work, a lot of extra money, or hurt the environment even more. 3. My opponent argues that we should make it a LAW, and PUNISH those who do not use or re-use everything that has an additional use, no matter how silly, expensive, or time-wasting it is. "It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste" "I define waste as anything used and material as anything that is useful for some purposes" This means that the leaves that fall from trees, human excrement, dead bodies, rotting food, confidential paper, bloody needles from HIV patients, we should spend additional money and time to find a way to recycle and reuse them instead of isolating them away. Sometimes we need to be practical in our suggestions.
It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.

Yes, if there is land to open more for, why can't we do something more productive in it? I agree that money and jobs can develop from it, but so can the same develop from recycling plants. And why not spend the money on improving recycling plants instead of landfills? I agree that landfills will always be necessary for those things without further use, but for those things with a further use, we can always reuse it. 'Reusing is recycling'. Thank you
It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.

My opponent has misinterpreted my argument. My argument is that it is IMPRACTICAL to have the law enforce people reuse ALL things that have a possible further use. My fecal matter and urine can be used to fertilize soil, but I find it absurd to pass a law saying that I need to take time out of my busy schedule to collect it, give it to someone, or compost it myself. As for the argument about landfills, please see the following source: http://www.slate.com... This article teaches that landfills can be improved to protect the environment, that there is land to open more, and that money and jobs can develop because of it. Landfills will always be necessary, but we must balance land with cost. My opponent's suggestion to recycle EVERYTHING with a further use is expensive and impractical. I suggest we continue recycling what we are recycling now and spend money more wisely: Improve landfills. Thank you.
It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.

I take my opponent's rebut into one main points - it is useless to 'recycle' some things that can be reused. But please take note that reusing is recycling. Onto my main argument. Have you ever thought about how much land is wasted by landfills? Landfill space can easily be used to do other more useful things, such as building houses. Please note that houses built on landfills will collapse. The space can also be used to do many other things, but is instead used to do something harmful. So we are combining harmful actions + harmful environment damage + space waste. We could prevent all that by recycling.
It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.

Basically, we can break down his argument into two main points: 1. Recycling is a way to save money 2. Recycling can reduce dangerous environmental hazards In the vast majority of cases, I agree with my opponent that recycling will help with the above two things. However, I do not believe that it should be compulsory to recycle the things my opponent has defined as waste. My opponent has defined waste as "anything used and material as anything that is useful for some purposes, such as cloth, bark etc. " And yes, that means *anything* that is useful for some purposes. Oily Chinese take-out containers, used toilet paper, fecal matter, urine, hair, sweat, dust, these things all have many uses, but recycling them is usually hazardous or expensive. It doesn't make any sense for the government to enforce recycling these things. I await my opponent's response. Thank you
It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.

My first argument on why recycling should be mandatory is that we would be wasting massive amounts of money on the things we throw away had we not recycled them. Say for example, if all mobiles were just dumped into landfill, we would have wasted millions of dollars not recovering precious material such as metals in the phones. These metals can be used to do many, many things, such as constructing lifts. Think about it - why throw away lifts? Also, had the mobiles been thrown away, huge amounts of pollution such as methane would have been produced. Methane is a very destructive polluter. I will expand on this in my next arguments. Thanks.
It should be compulsory to recycle recyclable material and waste.

I want to first ask my opponent to grant me some permissions: I would ask that my opponent stick to his exact definitions and not introduce any additional restrictions or definitions in his later rounds. I do not want later rounds to turn into a fight over who meant what when who said what. I would also ask that my opponent respect the values and morals upon which I base my arguments and judge/respond on the arguments themselves, giving me the freedom to disagree however I choose, for whatever reason I choose, not just in a manner that my opponent believes is proper, so long as my arguments are valid and logical. If my opponent agrees, then please post the first argument. If not, let us communicate via comment. Thanks! Let's have a great debate!
Resolved: Lord Voldemort is a better villain than The Joker

1. So you do agree that Harry wasn't able to defeat Voldemort by himself at some level? Was it only Hermione and Ron that Harry had to have in order to be able to win?2. Is that the only Joker that exists?3. But if there were no scenes in the movie where he used the potato peeler, how do you prove he actually used it at all?4. So you agree that it was mostly Batman alone that was required to take down the Joker?
Resolved: Lord Voldemort is a better villain than The Joker

Before continuing with my argument, I would like to make a quick cross-examination of my opponent's argument:1. You state that Voldemort has been thwarted multiple times by a child and defeated by one in the end. In the other times that Voldemort has been thwarted, was he always at his strongest, and when he was defeated in the end, was it through the efforts of Harry alone or more than one person? 2. You make references to the Joker from the 2008 film The Dark Knight, correct? 3. This will seem like a silly question, but, how do you prove that the Joker actually used that potato peeler?4. You state that Joker prepares all of his materials for destruction. Why does that make him a better villain?5. It takes Batman alone to stop the Joker, right?
Seahawks vs. Packers

1) Interception As said in R2 by my opponent, "If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. " My opponent argues, "They both had possession as Tate and Jennings ended up on the ground," but that is meaningless. By the rule, it doesn't matter how it ended, only who achieved possession first, which has been shown. 2) Interception My opponent makes an unsourced claim and says that he could not find the video. Well, he still had over 2 days to post his argument (he posted with something lik two days and five hours left) and could have spent that time finding the video. Regardless, it doesn't matter if the referees were not looking for penalties, the rule book does not provide a "hail mary exception. " So, by the rules (not the refs but the rules themselves), the TD should not have been called. Thank you,
Seahawks vs. Packers

Thank you for that lengthy reply! Now let me point out that Tate had both hands on the ball WHEN JENNINGS TOUCHED DOWN. Also since his left hand never left the ball, it can't be ruled an interception. This was taken from the video. They both had possession as Tate and Jennings ended up on the ground. Therefore, the interception argument is refuted. Pass interference, however is another topic. That is under penalties. Also, on a Hail Mary pass, pass interference penalties are not counted because everyone is vying for the ball. Sadly, I could find the video that stated this, but the head referee, who happened to be a real estate agent, he stated on television that if a Hail mary occurred, he was not to look for penalties. An Official of the NFL told him that. So therefore, the pass interference argument is not valid. My opponent did a good job, but I have been able to refute this by what the referee stated AND the video they provided. I am looking forward to the outcome of this debate.