BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today

If the case was that it could be stopped, than why is it not right now? I cannot see anyone dumb enough to know how to use a computer but not know how to turn off security settings. Cyber bullying is a big factor in all of this. More info on this can be found below: http://mediasmarts.ca... Teens are easily influenced by media today and it has a big impact on the rest of their lives. Teens also may be addicted to the internet. This is serious such as alcohol addiction or drug addiction. More info on this can be found below: http://www.helpguide.org...
Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today

The Pro would like you to believe health risks, cyber dangers, disadvantages, and the shortening of attention spans will torment society with the terrible things social media offers. The Pro continues to paint pessimism and isolated cases of negative studies that also share good preventive and healthy alternatives. The Pro even stated "Also, teens now have an attention span of less than 5 minutes compared to 12 minutes back in 1990's." That's an amazing and precise statistic that wildly can't be linked to any link accessible to Pro's sea of disparage that the Pro floats absentmindedly through a resource online that builds a wider understanding for learning.Your claims are at best cherry picking at the air. The Pro seems to not have the knowledge that a teacher-parent have restrictions and safe guards to prevent children and teens from accessing inappropriate or destructive resources. Social media has settings that also prevent unwanted activity, buildng healthy connections.
Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today

Teens also no longer spend time outdoors as much or building positive social interactions. When teens spend more than 2 hours on the computer, it poses health risks such as permanent eye damage. Below, is a link with more insight on this: http://listdose.com... There are also many disadvantages for using the computer: http://www.studymode.com... Teens spend too much time on the computer and feel a false comparison between other friends. Some compare how many friends they have on FaceBook but how many of those people are really friends? This also leads to cyberbullying which plays a large part in the society on the internet.
Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today

The links you provided utters the same sentiment I shared in round one. Like any indulgence, if you have no self-discipline you will socially pass it along to others or inevitably have less communicative abilities to use beyond the closed off world it can create. I also find the study in the Guardian using a primitive tribe and their attention span to be of little value to your point. You've not provided enough character space to flesh out my example of why it makes little too no sense to conduct a study on a ethnicity that never came in contact with social media until it is thrust upon them. There is also an equal amount of studies to showcase the positive of social media opposing the pessimism: http://www.studymode.com... http://www.commonsensemedia.org... https://www.khanacademy.org... It's a technological way of life that most be introduced properly rather negatively induced.
Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today

Although the world wide web has connected us with people around the world, it is the cause for all of this. If you go back to the history of 1950's and before the internet came to be, you will see that people did not use abbreviations rather, a whole word which is not very common now. Furthermore, there is proof that it is shortening the attention spans of teens. Below are just several links on this topic: http://www.forbes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.theguardian.com... As you can see, there has been many studies on this. Please give information to support your arguments. The internet was first created to share ideas but has become something that is used a little too much.
Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today

Social media is not a cause for abbreviated terminology, the attention span of teens, and how people communicate effectively. Social media has enriched our lives, connected us on a level unlike society has ever been in past generations, and through the wide-spread use of the internet has taught so many aspects of what many once considered unattainable due to a worldwide connectivity of facts, opinions, and innovated ideas. It is in how people spend their time using social media, the application of what we gain from it that leaves no spectrum of right or wrong that defines a generation. The idea that something is either bad or good has developed a narrow-mindedness for the gift it can bring. Generalization, stereotyping, or seeing things as 'black and white' is the conflict. Feeling or thinking helpless to individualize your experience or mentoring those who you can touch by a better model for worldwide communication would aid the conflicting idea behind the impact it presents
Social Media has A Bad Impact on Our Lives Today

Social media has a bad impact on our lives today as it is starting to affect teens' behaviours and it does not allow them to talk face-to-face. Also, teens now have an attention span of less than 5 minutes compared to 12 minutes back in 1990's. Some other effects are seen in writing and social impacts. People now use many abbreviations such as LOL, TTYL and BFF instead of using full words and the word "selfie" was noted Word of the Year by the Oxford Dictionary. Teens no longer know how to talk to people due to the many uses of connection such as IM, FaceTime and Phone Calls. Scientists also noted that too much screen time means many health risks in teens. I will talk more about these things in the upcoming rounds.
marijuanal should be legailized

"Because the prohibition of alcohol caused a rise in crime by funding criminal organizations much like the prohibition of marijuana."So if enough people break the law, we should just make it legal? To quote the film Seven, "We see a deadly sin on every street corner, in every home, and we tolerate it. We tolerate it because it's common; it's trivial." If something becomes commonplace, we should not just tolerate it, we should enforce the law."Prohibition denies our most basic human right. Prohibition takes away our right of sovereignty over our own bodies and gives this power to government."This still does not change the point that you're fighting for the right to harm your body. Like I said, it is technically your right to harm yourself, but why is this one of your strongest points? Our government should help its people protect themselves."No but the dea would be able to focus more resources on more hardcore drugs."My concept remains:"This argument would make more sense if there were more serious crimes in the first place... What, you think that police just focus solely on pot users instead of solving murders? That's ridiculous. But smoking pot is, as of right now, a crime in most states. We should treat it as such."The resources are still being used in different areas, whether that's murder or hardcore drugs."What my point meant was that it gives young people a criminal record which could hurt their chances for a job... These new 'convicts' are driven from their jobs and families, and pushed into a prison system that turns first-time offenders into hardened criminals."You ignored my question if you have any solid evidence for this. Even if it were true (which is a questionable premise at best), this simply reiterates the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug."Prohibition diverts billions from the needy. More than 50 government agencies feed at the drug war trough. Food stamps and other social programs are being slashed while billions are spent trying to stop adults from using marijuana"The overall cost of marijuana prohibition is about 20 billion a year (1), which is a ratio of 1:852 to our overall national debt of 17.04 trillion. (2, 3) Welfare, on the other hand, takes about one trillion from tax payers (4), which is a much more substantial ratio of 1:17. It's obvious that welfare needs to be fixed much more quickly than our prohibition costs do.___Overall, my opponent made a few mediocre points that were quickly refuted, proved to be meaningless, or at the very least easily shown to be two-sided. The opponent never provided sources and the points themselves didn't seem to be very thought out, and only four of my seven rebuttals were addressed. Thanks for reading, voters. Vote for whoever made the better argument.___1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...2. https://www.google.com...3. http://www.usdebtclock.org...4. http://www.foxbusiness.com...
marijuanal should be legailized

The drug generally isn't more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation." Exactly, so why should any be legal? All three of those things produce little to no positive effects. Marijuana can be used medically, and I will address this later on." Because the prohibition of alcohol caused a rise in crime by funding criminal organizations much like the prohibition of marijuana. "Limiting the use of mind-altering and potentially dangerous (1) substances infringes personal freedom? I mean, I guess technically, but that seems absolutely ridiculous to fight for." Prohibition denies our most basic human right. Prohibition takes away our right of sovereignty over our own bodies and gives this power to government. "This argument would make more sense if there were more serious crimes in the first place. This argument has never made any sense. What, you think that police just focus solely on pot users instead of solving murders?" No but the dea would be able to focus more resources on more hardcore drugs. "Second, do you have any backing for this data that it leads to lifelong crime?" What my point meant was that it gives young people a criminal record which could hurt their chances for a job. The government arrests over 700,000 Americans, more than the population of Wyoming, for marijuana possession every year. These new "convicts" are driven from their jobs and families, and pushed into a prison system that turns first-time offenders into hardened criminals. Prohibition diverts billions from the needy. More than 50 government agencies feed at the drug war trough. Food stamps and other social programs are being slashed while billions are spent trying to stop adults from using marijuana
marijuanal should be legailized

The drug generally isn't more harmful than alcohol or tobacco if used in moderation. Limiting the use of the drug intrudes on personal freedom. There are medical benefits such as the those for cancer patients. Police and court resources would be freed up for more serious crimes.Aside from recreational drug use, Cannabis has several industrial and commercial uses, as over 25,000 products can be made from the crop. Drug busts often trap young people in a flawed system that turns them into lifelong criminals. Studys show healthy men who have smoked the equivalent of one joint daily for seven years have a lung capacity that is 1.6 percent higher than that of otherwise healthy non-marijuana-smoking men.
Abortion

I would like to start with a morality debate on abortion. I hope my opponent agrees to such. Let's begin. I would like to start with my framework for this debate. I value the philosiphy- utilitarianism[1] The greatest good for the greatest number. Basically that the ends justify the means and that if we have to sacrifice something for the best of society, we should go through with it. contention 1: abortion significantly reduces crime. Just read the article, it's long but it'll explain it. basically if abortion reduces crime it's good. [2] Contention 2: stem cell research Stem cell research has great potential in our society, and for the time being, has helped stopping brain tumours, fake blood transfusions, and helping diabetes. It is the only potential training ground for testing. [3] Contention 3:teen pregnancy Quality over quantity, the number of teen pregnancies has skyrocketed. nearly 1/3 of girls become pregnant before the age of 20.[4] and many of them are dropping out of school because of such[5][6]. This helps all society by creating a more educated population. Due to time restraints I can't clarify more this round, but I will expand on these points [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://escholarship.org... [3]http://www.stemcellresearchcures.com... [4]http://www.livestrong.com... [5]http://www.aclu-wa.org... [6]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
To be revealed.

My opponent presents his argument in a syllogistic form: p (abortion) -> (implies) q (killing) q -> r (wrong) Therefore, p -> r, and abortion should be banned. I will disprove this theory with similar logic: by proving p -> ~q (not killing). I negate my opponent's first point by challenging the quote. "From the moment of conception, the fetus has DNA that tells us that it is human (obviously) and that it is an individual (in that no one else has that DNA). What do we call an individual human? A human being." Merriam-Webster's definition of "human being" redirects to the noun "human", which reads: "a bipedal primate mammal". Now, at the moment of conception, a fetus is not a human. Why? Because how can you say two sex cells make a human? At the moment of conception, can this fetus do what any human can do? Of course not. Can this two-celled zygote maintain a stable living condition (homeostasis) and get the capacity to grow (metabolism) on its own? No. Two cells do not make a human being just because they have human DNA. So, life does not begin at conception. If life does not begin at conception, then an abortion at some point during the pregnancy but before the fetus' life would be alright, since the mother is not killing anything alive. So, to sum my argument up in syllogistic form: p (abortion) -> (implies) ~q (not killing) ~q -> ~r (not wrong; right) Therefore, p -> ~r, and abortion should NOT be banned. Vote gahbage.
To be revealed.

I will simply repost my argument from a previous debate on the same topic. My argument is simple: (1) A fetus, or embryo, is an individual human being (2) Abortion kills this innocent human being. (3) Abortion should be banned. The main contention that needs to argued for is (1). In support of this, I will use an objective way to show that fetuses are individual, human beings: DNA. William Lane Craig, Professor of Philosophy at Biola University, has said, "Already in that moment of conception, that individual is either male or female, depending on whether he or she received an X or Y chromosome from the sperm. The later developments of sexual organs and other secondary sexual characteristics is only evidence of a difference in sexuality that has been there from the very beginning. Moreover, all of the individual's traits, such as body type, ey and hair color, facial characteristics, and so forth, are determined at the moment of conception and are just waiting to unfold. From the moment of conception we have a genetically complete and unique human being; in effect, you began at the moment of your conception." From the moment of conception, the fetus has DNA that tells us that it is human (obviously) and that it is an individual (in that no one else has that DNA). What do we call an individual human? A human being. This is why Professor Matthews-Roth of Harvard University Medical School has said, "It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." My second point follows the simple definition of abortion. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines abortion as "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus". Abortion kills the fetus. My conclusion follows logically. The killing of innocent human beings, no matter how large or small, should be banned.
To be revealed.

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. In the contender's round 1, he/she will propose 3 different topics of debate that COVER VARIOUS FIELDS. (I don't want 3 debates about abortion but worded differently, for example.) Then in my round 2, I will choose one of the resolutions. The contender will then, in his/her round 2, choose PRO or CON and whether to go first or second. If he/she goes first, to keep the number of arguments per person equal, he/she must include the opening argument in the response, and cannot post an argument in the final round. (Forfeit, spam, etc.) However, if I am forced to go first, the debate will proceed as normal. Either way, we will both have the normal 3 rounds to debate.
To be revealed.

"The problem with this logic is that, well, we don't use it. For example, there are multiple diseases that prevent people from maintaining stable living conditions or having the capacity to grow correctly without medicine or treatment. Do we say that people with these diseases aren't humans? No. We still classify them as humans even if they can't do things that most humans can do. In the same way we should classify a fetus as a human being even if it has not yet developed the abilities that most humans possess." Of course they are humans - there was merely a genetic error that caused the disease. If you sampled their DNA you would still find human DNA. That is not the point I was making, however. I was saying that a fetus is not human at conception, because two cells do not make a human. Think about it: When I was conceived, I had the very same DNA as I do right now in my fingernail. Is my fingernail a human? It is by your reasoning. But any reasonable person could see that my fingernail is not a human, by logic or by definition. Furthermore, I am made up of billions (if not trillions) of cells. How could I be human if I was TWO cells? You can't even see two cells; they're microscopic! How can you possibly expect that to be a human? "A fetus, with many more changes to come, should be considered one too." No, because it has yet to become a human in the first place, not change into a new stage of humanity. Now, I will not supply quotes from scientists on my position, because it would just turn into a large battle of "who can get more quotes". I will simply address my opponent's quotes. "After fertilization takes place a new human being has come into being." " . . . being has come into being"? And see my earlier point. "Of course human life begins at conception." So it's true because he said it under oath? It would be, "he said it under oath because it's true", and not because he was in a court of law. Now let's looks at the logical aspect of my opponent's reasoning. In addition to the points I suggested earlier, he believes that fetuses will become humans, so they should have rights. I negate; just because a fetus may have rights in the future, does not mean it should have rights NOW. It will get the rights when it is proven to be a living human; that is, when it is born. Much like a criminal. You cannot punish the criminal for a crime he may commit in the future. And you cannot give a fetus rights it may have in the future. My opponent's reasoning is, well... unreasonable, and I have successfully defended my position. At this point you vote gahbage.
To be revealed.

My opponent attempted to negate my claim that a fetus is a human being, thereby showing that abortion does not kill human beings. My opponent's logic involved citing things that fetuses can't do (the assumption seems to be that true humans should be able to do such things): "Now, at the moment of conception, a fetus is not a human. Why? Because how can you say two sex cells make a human? At the moment of conception, can this fetus do what any human can do? Of course not. Can this two-celled zygote maintain a stable living condition (homeostasis) and get the capacity to grow (metabolism) on its own? No." The problem with this logic is that, well, we don't use it. For example, there are multiple diseases that prevent people from maintaining stable living conditions or having the capacity to grow correctly without medicine or treatment. Do we say that people with these diseases aren't humans? No. We still classify them as humans even if they can't do things that most humans can do. In the same way we should classify a fetus as a human being even if it has not yet developed the abilities that most humans possess. The reason we should do so can be summed up by Dr. Bongioanna, professor of obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, who has said, while speaking on the early stages of development in the womb, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty is not a human being. This is human life at every stage." In the same way that a newborn child, who still has many changes and developments to go through in life, is considered a human being. A fetus, with many more changes to come, should be considered one too. From his previous claim (which we have shown to be incorrect), my opponent argued that the conclusion that we would reach would be "life does not begin at conception." However, this goes in complete contrast with modern science. In addition to my previous quote by Professor Matthews-Roth, Dr. Jerome LeJeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes in Paris, has said, "After fertilization takes place a new human being has come into being." Even Aileen Klass, owner of Oregon's largest abortion clinic, has said under oath in the Lovejoy Surgicenter vs. Advocates for Life Ministries case: "Of course human life begins at conception." Vote Affirmative
a child should be able to speak just as freely as adults..

Hi Sophisticatedhonesty, Thank you for the topic. It is an interesting and no doubt important issue, and is something that is continuously discussed in classrooms all over the world. Before we begin, I think we may need to clarify something: When you say "just as freely", are you indicating that children should have the same right to free political and/or religious speech as adults? Or are you speaking in a broader sense, including generous use of profanity? I look forward to hearing your opinions.
Legalization of Prostitution in the United States

Title says it all. I, Pro, am debating in favor of legalizing prostitution in the United States of America, while Con will be arguing againstsuch a proposal. I believe that legalizing it will be beneficial to some while it will bear no harm or affect on others. Regardless I believe that the pros outweigh the cons in this issue. I believe it should be legalized as long as the prostitutes should get regular STD tests etc., as they do in certain parts of Nevada. [1]: Meaning of legalize: To make legal or lawful; authorize or sanction by law. [2]: Meaning of prostitution: One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts. I hope this topic is not overdone, but I don't really care either way as I see it as an interesting thing to debate. First round is acceptance only. Second round are arguments only. Third round are rebuttals only. Thank you to any readers and especially to whoever my opponent is. I look forward to a well-done, cordial, thought-provoking debate. Sources: [1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Pre-testing in public schools

In Round 3, you said "At the moment I am making straight A's by memorizing notes and formulas, and I still remember everything from months ago because I memorized it." However, in Round 1 you said "Half of the time I forget what I "learned" a week after testing." These two above statements are contradiction of each other. If you still remember everything from month ago then how do you forget what you learned a week ago? If you truly memorized your notes and formula then you should not forget your notes and formula from 10 years from now.