BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Media helps teenagers.

We should encourage them to have actual human contact. We can't do that if all we use are cell phones and computers.It's hard to connect with someone if you don't see a face. Even with 200 friends on Facebook, how many of them do you talk to on a daily basis and actually spend time with? So in reality, you have 200 acquaintances. I have 157, and to be completely honest? I hardly talk to any of them. If I have something to say, I say it in person. And it's hard to bond with someone through a computer screen. You don't get the same effect.Besides, it's easier to get away with bullying. Only 20 states have laws against cyberbullying.Social media might not be intended for it, but it's still something that happens. And as for logging off? It doesn't make it disappear. If you're in high school and have classmates on your friendlist, you won't escape it. People always bring it up. And you agree. Social media makes rumors and gossip worse. However, if people knew how to act online, the victims wouldn't have to log off in the first place.1 in 5 cases of cyberbullying are reported. I've been one of the 4 who didn't report it.https://nobullying.com...Teens post pictures of good scores on tests, or family trips when they put blood, sweat, and tears in to make it happen...Every teenager has scrolled through their feed jealous of a girl who is rather thin and pretty or a guy who has an awesome job and vehicle with a pretty girlfriend. It's second nature. Yeah, it's good for the person posting it, but someone will always feel insufficient to that person.It makes people feel isolated if they have a dysfunctional family...I'm not saying to be ashamed of good grades, wealth, or nationality. I'm just saying. You may have been excited for them, but not everyone's brain is wired that way. Some people have more going on than they care to show.
Social Media helps teenagers.

I see it as a way to demoralize teenagers. We should encourage them to have actual human contact. We can't do that if all we use are cell phones and computers. Besides, it's easier to get away with bullying. Only 20 states have laws against cyberbullying. 1 in 5 cases of cyberbullying are reported. I've been one of the 4 who didn't report it. Teens post pictures of good scores on tests, or family trips when they put blood, sweat, and tears in to make it happen. It makes people feel isolated if they have a dysfunctional family.
Christians are illogical

As we have both agreed to the definitions in the round, let's move on. My constructive case will be a short one but a simple one. In order to be a Christian, one must believe in their holy text. This holy text is in itself illogical, through the mortal god scenario, the all-seeing anger paradox, etc. etc. As the text is illogical, and the Christians always believe in the holy text, then accorging to the definition of illogical Christians are illogical as long as they believe in the holy text, so their logical process is constantly corrupted. It's as simple as that. However, logically, this illogical mindset can only last untill the point where an individual realizes how illogical the Bible is and believes that the Bible wrong. However, according to the definition of Christian not believing in the Bible is against the teachings of Christianity, so these people would no longer be Christians according to the definition of Christianity. Thus, because they constantly believe in an illogical text, and the only way to prevent this illogical state would be to no longer be a Christian (as according to the definition), I affirm that Christians are illogical.
Christians are illogical

I've debated this once before but was unsatisfied with the actual debate, so I was hoping I could find another partner for this one. I'd like to clarify that I actually believe the con., but I argued the con in the last debate, so I'd just like to see what the aff is like. Rules: 1.) The first round is just for acceptance, both of the resolution and of the definitions 2.) There CAN be arguments in the final round 3.) If definitions are not disputed in the first round, then they are considered the accepted definitions and will be used for the entire debate. 4.) If any definitions are disputed, then they are to be argued over throughout the round and the voters will decide which they prefer to use. DEFINITIONS: Christian-One who follows the teachings of a Christian Sect, as defined by their holy text. Illogical-not observing the principles of logic; not following logical processes
Rap battle

I really don't care what are you are your intentions Cuz I'm gonna win this, there's no question But there is something I have to mention My raps are so good there beyond your comprehension So there's no point even trying If you continue ill leave you crying You'll wake up at night and go driving Wishing that you were dying Cuz you don't have the skill to be rhyming I gonna keep it short cuz your just that bad Anymore insulting I'll make you go mad Making you wish that my skill was the one that you had Dude you need to quit cuz that's just sad
Rap battle

yo so you say your sentences are complexwell i say your rhymes are more like trainwrecksyour rhyme schemes such, your analogies blowyou suck at rapping and it really does showthese rhymes id like to see you try to reciprocateyeah, you can't, go back to your box and masturbategirls don't like you huh, so you can't procreate?yeah, i can rhyme the last word of each line too, no hate.im one step closer with each versejust a little bit close to putting you in a hearseto take you 6 feet beneath the eartheveryones been waiting for this since your birthyou're inferior, i'm superior thats all we need to know here i just pull lines out while my opponents like durrrrand with this last line, the mic i conferOff topic, not to be judged:Thanks for accepting, and I look forward to seeing your response.Also, no hate really meant!
Euthanasia Should be Legal in The United States

Here is a basic framework for this debate. Round 1 is acceptance Round 2 is opening arguments Round 3 is rebuttals Round 4 you may not bring up new arguments on your side, but you may rebut and defend your case Round 5 will just be wrapping up the debate. No new arguments or rebuttals. Please take this debate seriously. If you are familiar with academic debate, such as Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, or Public Forum debate, this will be similar. I will be expecting to finish this debate and I expect you to do the same. Sources are needed, and we will be judging this round on 4 points: Which side can introduce and extend arguments the best Which side can win the framework debate. Which side maintains debate etiquette and civility. Which side presents their arguments in the best way.
American culture should become more sexualized

This, to me, would be the sexualization of a culture. Public nudity should be legalized and encouraged. Prostitution should be legalized. All types of consensual sodomy between any two [or more] animate beings should be legalized. Nudity [especially non-sexual] should be allowed on TV, PG rated movies, and Internet sites including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram. Age of consent should be lowered to 15 and non-sexual nude images of children [upon parental consent] should be legalized. Viewing of amateur pornography should be encouraged for curious children. All sexual matters should be encouraged to be talked about openly. I would like the debate to go like so: R1 introduction and acceptance R2 initial arguments R3 counter-arguments R4 defense to counter-arguments R5 final thoughts and who you should vote for and why I would like someone older than the age of 18 to debate this topic considering the topic. I would also prefer someone with experience in debating although you only need to have completed one debate on this site to qualify.
if matter is eternal, surely a god didnt create it

I know there is a God and know Him personally. My if...then argument was a theoretical argument for you who reject God. Even if you do not think there is a god, atheists can play mind games and say if there is a god, then.....I am trying to show you that you can still debate from a theoretical position even if you do not believe it. Your assumptions and conclusions are wrong and your arguments vacuous. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. There is sufficient evidence for God, so dismissing the possibility makes you an omniscient god or unable to make an absolute claim. Something does not come from nothing. A personal, uncreated, infinite being does explain reality, but eternal, impersonal, powerless matter does not. Again, many or most secular scientists believe the universe/matter had a beginning based on the evidence. Cause-effect with an infinite regress of finite causes is not possible. A self-existent, necessary being is not a thing nor caused, but the Uncaused Cause. This is robust and explanatory. You simply beg the question (circular reasoning) a priori without making an argument. Disciplined atheistic/theistic philosophers would scoff at your juvenile debate. They recognize it is a balance of probability based on cumulative evidence and do not use logical fallacies to make the case. I know a book, jumbo jet, painting, etc. does not come into existence from nothing or by time, chance, chaotic explosion. How much more is the complexity of humans, biodiversity, vast universe finely tuned, etc. not the product of eternal matter (wherever it came from), but intelligent design, Yahweh, fully revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 1 says you are without excuse for suppressing truth that God has made plain in creation.
if matter is eternal, surely a god didnt create it

you just said, if there is a god, therfore there is no god, and you admit it.. the default is that there is no god, thats also why there are so many religions, and you havnt even tried to prove that there is a possibility that matter can even be created, which all evidence argues it can not eternal=no beginning and no end if matter is eternal stands until you have proven matter is not eternal or matter is created.. defeat you can assume whatever you like, including there is a god, while its true there is no god by default
if matter is eternal, surely a god didnt create it

Many great minds through the centuries, including former atheists who set out to disprove theism, believe that God did create matter. If there is a God, this is fully possible and actual. Something does NOT come from nothing. If you argue that matter is eternal, you have not explained where it came from or how it can give rise to the reality that exists? Again, many atheistic scientists believe the evidence points to matter having a beginning. They have no sure answer how the rest of things came into being (life, mind, etc.). You have not responded to my argument and not made a case for your argument. Your spelling and grammar also do not reflect a mind that should be dogmatic on these profound, ultimate issues. I am not brainwashed and saying something does not come from nothing is a defensible observation/statement that many great philosophers rigorously defend. Can I assume you are in your teens and possibly dabble in drugs?
if matter is eternal, surely a god didnt create it

To make your case, you would have to give scientific and philosophical arguments that matter is eternal and could explain the reality we see. Could it be possible for an eternal God to have eternal matter along side Himself? False religion Mormons believe matter is eternal based on uneducated Joseph Smith adopting popular 19th century views. Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions. Matter is not eternal. Many or most scientists now rightly believe that the universe had a beginning and that matter is not eternal. They have speculative theories on origins, but no solid evidence or definitive views. If God did not create matter, where did it come from? Something (created) does not come from nothing. Life does not come from non-life. Beauty, morals, truth, complexity, life, diversity, personality, intelligence, etc. does not come from impersonal matter. The most robust, explanatory view that comes from divine revelation, not raw reason is that an infinite, personal, intelligence, powerful, uncreated, eternal Creator spoke reality into existence (creatio ex nihilo....creation from nothing by His powerful word/fiat). Design=designer. Genesis 1:1 is a brute fact without explanation; Romans 1 says that the Creator has made Himself plain and we are without excuse for suppressing truth and rejecting Him. Creation, Christ, Scripture, conscience, Church are cumulative evidences for God (spirit) being eternal, not matter. Eternal matter is problematic and not explanatory of reality. If one is a materialist/scientism and excludes a supernatural God a priori, then one will beg the question and state matter is eternal or came from nothing rather than the more defensible, plausible, probable idea that a self-existent being has brought it into existence.
God exists

This debate is currently impossible to accept. Please post in the comments if you would like to debate this topic and I will choose an appropriate debater. If you accept this without my permission all votes should go to Con (me). As con my possition in this debate is against the existence of God therefore my opponent will be arguing that God does exist. Debate Structure Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main points and justifications (pt 1)Round 3: Main points and justifications (pt 2) + rebuttals*Round 4: Rebuttals + any additional arguments (optional)Round 5: Additional rebuttals and conclusion (no new arguments) ** this is optional since you may not have enough characters to do this **Rules No trolling No forfeiture You must follow the debate structure All other basic DDO rules applyFAILURE TO ABIDE BY THE RULES WILL RESULT IN ALL VOTES SHOULD BE IN FAVOUR OF THE OPPOSITE SIDE DefinitionsGod - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (Judaism, Christianity or Islam only).Exists - To be aliveSources http://tinyurl.com...
Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

I accept this challenge. My first argument is that the governments of developed countries is not the only way we can solve this problem. There are things like individuals, organizations and more that can help. For example, fossil fuels like gasoline, when burned, indirectly cause climate change due to CO2. However, gas prices are going up, and people will switch to greener alternatives as they cannot afford gas. Plus, developed countries are not producing all the pollution in the world, but climate change is a global issue, and just developed nations is not enough. For example, the US actually produces less co2 than China, which produces 7,031,916 thousand metric tons per year, compared to the U.S. 5,461,014 thousand tons.[1] So, all developed nations do produce a lot of CO2, but a lot of CO2 is from other nations. Climate change is a global problem, but you are just thinking that developed nations should not only remove their impact, but also impacts from other nations. Exactly how is that "morally obliged" ? (No personal attack intended.) "Judge, what this means is that many patrons of terrorism happen to be oil and gasoline investors. If we buy gasoline, these supporters of terrorism would earn money, and stuff their profits into supporting terrorist groups, leading to deaths inside our own country and other places around the world. But if we switch to green energy, we would significantly decrease the profits of these terrorism supporters, and as a result, save many lives." As I said before, as gas prices rise, they will get less profit as more people switch to other energy. Plus, you are talking about renewable energy, which is linked but a separate topic. "The Impact is clear. Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created." But lot's of CO2 are from developing countries! And you said only developed nations should do this, so they have to clean up someone else's mess. "Climate Change causes the environment to be affected. All the more reason for countries to mitigate its effects. According to Nasa, Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceeds 1.5-2.5"C. We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility] told the Guardian last month.Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die." Global warming has many deadly consequences, but this does not mean that developed nations should clean up someone else's mess. You said " Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created.", but this is not completely the fault of developed nations. In conclusion, all nations, not just developed nations, have the moral obligation to mitigate climate change. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

Thanks to my opponent for a nice debate! 1. The only thing I got from your source is "The requested URL /files/11775_UNISDRBriefingAdaptationtoClimateCh.pdf" was not found on this server." 2."If you look at my weighing mechanism, we can see that deontolgy is the moral obligation definition. As the pro, I have the burden of showing the Judge/judges that there is at least one instance where there is a moral obligation. We as the Pro save lives. I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many lives we save, while my opponent gives none. " First, we do not even know if global warming exists. It is like trying to save a house from burning down while not even knowing if it is burning or not. I addressed this several times and my opponent did not refute it at all. Second, as we do not even know if global warming exists, we do not even know if we can save any lives at all. 3."Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. " Again, oil, terrorism, and the moral obligation to mitigate climate change are separate topics. Oil is related to global warming, (Which we are not sure if it exists.), and related to terrorists, but this is nowhere linked to the moral obligation to mitigate climate change.
Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

Thanks opponent for a nice argument.i would like to point out that my opponents are bringing up unreliable evidence like the wikipedia, answers.com, free dictionary, and many others. Since we do not have the reliability of these, sources, you, the Judge, can disregard them. Adapt- Adaptation to climate change is a relatively new concern, but it can call on a rich tradition spanning many decades of practices to reduce disaster risks. [1] is more reliable. This specifically says to reduce. Since mitigation is to reduce, adaptation and mitigation are the same thing. Second, my opponents bring up the moral obligation pointIf you look at my weighing mechanism, we can see that deontolgy is the moral obligation definition. As the pro, I have the burden of showing the Judge/judges that there is at least one instance where there is a moral obligation. We as the Pro save lives. I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many lives we save, while my opponent gives none. Since we have the moral obligation to save lives, we should win. Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. Thus we have have the moral obligation to save lives from terrorist, (12,000) whether the people do it, or the government does it. The government has talked about switiching to alternative fuels. already. Thanks and please vote pro[1]- http://www.unisdr.org...;
Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

Thank you opponentMy opponent has two main arguments and I will refute them both and show how I win this debate. 1. Their first main argument is that developing countries should have the moral obligation as wellThis is wrong because1. Developed countries emitted way more than the developing countries now, during the industrial revolution. The thus have the moral obligation now. Later, when the developing countries become service oriented like the developed countries (refer to my CIA definition) then they shall have the moral obligation. Since we are talking about currently using past evidence, the developed countries should have a moral obligation2. We are not stopping the developing nations from mitigating. 3. People are dying out there because of the developed countries' actions during the industrial revolution. 9 Million are saved from vaccines, 12,000 from terrorism, and billions from the environmental causes. Let me give an analogy. If you set a house on fire, and someone is burning inside, you have the moral obligation to save that person. In this analogy, the person who set the house on fire is the developed countries and the developing countries are adding to the fire while you are not doing anything, merely copying your actions. Thus they have the moral obligation. 2. Their second main argument is that this will all happen anyways (sorry if I misunderstood the argument) with oil companies going out of business. This is wrong because1. Green energy is a way to mitigate climate change and so it is related.2. This is exactly my point. If we mitigate climate change, we are converting to renewable energy industries, thus stopping terrorism. 3. If you say the citizens convert on their own, this is good, they are mitigating climate change by doing so. Since a citizen represents a developed country, the developed country is mitigating climate change, and this is my point. Also, a citizen of a developed country represents a developed country because if you leave the USA during lets say World War 2. If you get arrested, in Germany, you probably were arrested because you were American(no racial/ethnic discrimination intended)Also, my opponents have not adequetly refuted my 1st contention. If anyone (judge/judges or opponent) wants any evidence sites from my case, just ask. Thanks you for your time, opponent and judge/judgesPlease vote for the pro/aff