BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The widespread use of the Internet has a positive impact on Society and Communications

Good luck to him. INTRODUCTION I will be arguing that while the internet has changed the way technologically literate people are able to communicate, it is a negative to society and alienates a large population by the increasing reliance on technology they simply cannot use. ARGUMENT Isolation of the technologically incapable Let’s talk about 2011, since *shock horror* that is the current year; actually we’re going to have to talk about 2008, since most of the census data I can find relates to that year. Here are some sources on the elderly population of Australia [1] and the United States [2] [3]. 15% of people (this is an underestimation of the projected average) are over 65. Here are two articles [4] [5] putting the percentage of people who never use the internet at about 30%. So it’s not just the elderly. 30% is not a small minority. The above sources put it at about one in three people. These people for whatever reason do not use the internet. “The implementation of sites and services that allow communication (Email clients), online transactions (eBay, Amazon. .. ), and socializing (Facebook, Twitter) have obviously had an impact on the world. ” However, it is not completely positive; as is the argument I’m making here: Not everyone uses it. As use of the internet increases by the people who do, these non-users within technologically capable societies are steadily more isolated. “The number of people with access to the Internet, in fact, is over 2 billion (source:ITU, International Telecommunications Union), nearly 1/3 of the world's population. “ Indeed, but what of the other 2/3 people, many of whom are so impoverish they may not even know such a thing exists. CONCLUSION I hypothesise the following two points, based on the above evidence: As long as any minority of non-users exists, people are going to be excluded from the party known as the internet. Right now, that’s a large majority (30%, as I cited) As long as parts of the world cannot afford food, let alone the technology to enjoy the internet, there will always be people whose societies are completely unaffected by the internet. Right now, that’s a huge majority (65%, as cited by my opponent) The resolution is refuted. SOURCES [1] . http://www.abs.gov.au... [2] . http://www.disabled-world.com... [3] . http://www.aoa.gov... [4] . http://arstechnica.com... [5] . http://thenextweb.com... [6] . http://www.apa.org...
The widespread use of the Internet has a positive impact on Society and Communications

Ever since the late 1990s, the Internet has been steadily becoming the main form of communication, business, and socialism. The implementation of sites and services that allow communication (Email clients), online transactions (eBay, Amazon...), and socializing (Facebook, Twitter) have obviously had an impact on the world. Moreover, with constantly developing technologies, the speed and reliability have greatly increased. Both of these facts contribute to the Internet being an extremely helpful service. The number of people with access to the Internet, in fact, is over 2 billion (source:ITU, International Telecommunications Union), nearly 1/3 of the world's population. This amounts to an infinite possiblities of connections, all of which have the possibility to affect the future in ways previously not possible. It is for these reasons that I believe that the Internet, and it's use have a positive impact on Society and Communications.
Consequentialism is the most justifiable ethical theory.

A system of ethics, it seems to me, is best defined as a system of behavior whose aim is to produce moral results. Being that most often consequentialist morality defines itself as "morality aimed at 'good' " it is tough to forumulate arguments against - I have a couple, but the bulk of my argumentation is going to be ethical, not moral. First the moral argument: So there are two basic responses to, and problems with, a purely utilitarian framework. The first is the Utility Vampire (or monster, which sounds funnier) and the second is the repugnant conclusion. - Utility Vampire: So if you have someone in your system who gets a LOT of utility from torturing people, like, -way- more utility than the disutility it produces, is this a moral action? - Repugnant Conclusion: Doesn't utilitarianism suggest that the optimal situation for a society to be in is to have the maximum number of citizens possible while still maintaining the barest possible positive utility value? That seems awful, intuitively. But really, again, the proposition was about ethics. So while I sort of agree with you that ontology is a wierd way of looking at -morality-, it seems like a perfectly justifiable way of looking at ethics, and also closest to the system of ethics we actually employ most often. Using consequentialism as an ethical tool depends entirely on individual actors ability to determine the course of action that is going to have the most moral consequences in ALL situations. That's a huge burden for individuals to bear, one they are going to fail and often, it also will not produce results that everyone will agree upon as being beneficial. There will be argument after argument about what produces the most utility. It's impossible to determine 100% one way or the other, so you are just going to have bunches of people making the wrong choices and arguing they were the right ones. Better then to establish a set of rules, of ontological principles, that guide individuals towards what we usually consider to be moral ends. Sometimes these will be wrong, but I contend it will be less often than individuals privately making utility determinations for every action. Sometimes we call rules like this "rights" - exceptions to the standard of utility. But -also- ! haha, Im going to go ahead and make one final argument about a pet subject, moral relativism. Your own argumentation is extremely relativistic. "The undesireable" is what you claim disutility represents. I have made arguments before about infanticide that I sort of believe. Undesireable! I alluded to this above as well, the fact is that it is retardedly difficult to try and establish truly universal utility and disutility standards. Even the harm principle is pretty anemic. We're all relativists underneath.
Consequentialism is the most justifiable ethical theory.

Natural rights and deontological rules are arbitrary claims. There is not one sound justification for a deontological ethical system. I challenge you to prove me wrong. If the means justify the ends then how do we know what just means are? Moral relativism is week. You cannot claim that the ethical status of a particular action is founded in the disposition of the majority. Was slavery acceptable? It seems to me that moral relativism would have to say that it is. What does this leave? The only remaining option: Consequentialism. Everyone subconsciously knows this. Thats why almost every debate you see on this website banks on the effects of a policy/idea. Any other argument must function off of some kind of implicit axiom that could easily be rejected by an opponent. Utility is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable and disutility is the only thing that is intrinsically evil. How could any ethical system function off of anything other than the maximization of valuable and the minimization of the undesirable. Moreover, consquentialist views, at minimum, should be the only form of acceptable debate in government and the public because it is the only system of thought that uses axioms that EVERYONE accepts.
That there is no such thing as a bad question

There are moments in life where one must source their debate. Sometimes, not a single source will be needed for the pure logic about to be displayed before the audience of the debate. I shall be using pure logic to counter all your raised points. The gun analogy is perfect. It's perfectly representative of the truth, my opponent merely chose to display it from a false point of view. The man holding the gun is the one posing the question. The gun is the context in which the question is being used. The bullet is the question. In a gunshot the bullet is helplessly thrust into a person or at a shooting target. It is crushed if the target is hard and merely left to waste and rot, since one cannot use a bullet if it hits a hard object, it is deformed. If the bullet is the question then the bullet has no say in where it goes or how it is used. So the analogy is in fact helpful to the Pro in this debate. In fact a bullet can be used to save someone by killing their potential murderer or rapist, so I fail to see how this is even related to the con's side of debate. 'Have you stopped beating your wife? ' is not a bad question. It merely is used to get information from someone. If used in a context where it can hurt someone it doesn't mean that it is bad, it means that it was used in a bad way. Questions of poor quality do not exist absolutely. To exist absolutely as bad it would mean that there can infinitely be no question of lower quality than that question, otherwise if compared to the wrong set of questions it could always be seen as being high quality since there will always be worse questions than others (words can infinitely be arranged to form questions, not all arrangements making sense but still asking a question). However, this is not true and thus there is no way t determine the quality of a question. Just because it is a yes or no question doesn't mean it is a bad quality question. The question 'Is there such a thing as a bad question? ' according to the con's debate, would in itself be a bad question as it requires a yes or no answer, so the con is openly claiming this debate's questioning to be of poor quality. This is ironic and hypocritical of the con. There is no such thing as a bad question. Use logic.
That there is no such thing as a bad question

The premise of my debate shall be on the basis that there is such a thing as bad usage of a question but no such thing as a bad question. I would like to reword the con's definition of bad, and actually the definition of good is necessary to understand my definition of bad, as I believe they have associated 'bad' with far too many words to begin with. Bad: Not good in any manner or degree. [1] Good: That which is morally right; righteousness. [2] My debate has one, very simple point. Any question one could possible conjure up will be morally right in some manner or to some degree, thus one cannot ever claim a question as bad. Instead, the only aspect related to the question which might be seen as bad is the use of the morally right question in a context that could cause pain or suffering to another person or for the sake of wasting time by asking a totally irrelevant question for the context in which it was used. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] https://www.google.co.uk... I hope the con will find some way to rebut my point. I believe my new outlook on the debate counters all points raised by con, thus it would be a waste of my opponent's and my own time if I were to repeat the same rebuttal one by one for each of their points.
Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents.

Cons objections to my proposal are based upon a situation in which the U . S. government is taken over by racist politicians appointing corrupt judges who strip the citizenship and deport those who fail to meet their ethnic preferences. Should that situation come to pass, this entire debate would be moot. In such a dystopian nation all laws and constitutional protections would lose their force. I'm assuming a more likely governing climate, similar to the past 50+ years. I would distinguish between the child of a parent who comes to the US for the express purpose of birthing here so as to gain citizenship before returning to their home country; and that of a child whose mother births here after seeking asylum from horrendous conditions. Those are very different situations and should be treated differently. The more undeserved citizenships we grant the less that will ultimately be available for the truly needy.
Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents.

This will be my last post here btw. Thanks for the great deabte. The last thing I want to say is that your plan would make many people who were born and raised here subject to the whim of whoever is in government at the time and relies upon the liberal understanding of politicians. If it were not for the citizenship given to migrants born here, many republicans would not think twice about deporting them and their families. They will never put in place unbiased judges to assess each case, they would immediately deport them without hesitation. The constitution is there to ensure a government, elected by only 50% of the nation cannot be stripping/deciding who is a citizen or not. If it were up to them, all non-whites without sufficient heritage would be stripped of their citizenship. It would be setting a dangerous precedent, cost lots of resources to judge everyone individually and be at the mercy of political mismanagement.
Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents.

The simplest solution to all immigration issues would be to eliminate all controls and let anyone become a citizen of whatever nation they desire. That creates more problems than it solves. Complicated issues often require complex solutions. Instead of automatically granting citizenship just for being born in the US, why not offer residency visas to children of non citizen parents, including a guaranteed citizenship hearing within a specified number of years, with the objective of treating each case on it's own merits. US citizenship has long been tied to parental national origin, not ethnicity. If your parents are citizens, so are you. US constitutional protections cover everyone on US territory regardless of citizenship. Parties who attack migrant communities in the US are subject to arrest and prosecution for violating that law regardless of the political leanings of the government in power at the time.
Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents.

One key argument in favor of Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US is its simplicity. If we tried to change it, it would raise so many questions that I feel you ought to answer. When can a child who was born and raised in the country get the chance to become a citizen? If something happens to that child or its family during that time, is it fair that it should be treated differently( e.g deportation, welfare, legal costs and healthcare) by the state when it has only ever know the US as its home? If citizenship was tied even more closely to ancestry, would America be deserting its multi-ethnic and international outlook? What is to stop a conservative government deporting children born and raised in the US as parties can attack migrant families without having to worry about the constitution? universal citizenship for those born inside a nations borders was one of the key things that held the british empire together as it protected those from discrimination.
Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents.

A grant of US citizenship has considerable financial value. It includes 12 years of free public education, free medical care and a host of other benefits, when needed, as well as the protection of U.S. law. It includes an ownership share of our national parks and other federal property. While we all have a moral obligation to care for the needy and homeless, that obligation doesn't include sharing property rights and tax dollars with everyone who shows up at the door - and that's precisely what we're doing when we grant citizenship. It might be the right thing to do, in many cases, but when we're about to make an offer of that degree of largesse it should be done on a case by case basis. Most Western European nations have long come to that conclusion and refuse to grant automatic citizenship. Con appears to be a kind and compassionate person but I'll bet even she would be taken aback by a homeless woman who, by reason of having birthed in Con's garden, demands a share of the property for her child.
Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents.

My issue is that there are so many, innumerable ways in which this could end up tearing children or families apart. If you are not a US citizen, you can be deported. So that means children who have lived their whole lives here (I should say there) can be deported. That is unequivocally wrong. If no other laws were put in place and that everything remained the same, it would be the most unfair policy ever. (e.g example of 18 year old deported that was born here). Also it puts barriers between people and children growing up if one is american while the other is seen as below them as they were never given citizenship. Another key problem is its racial element. In the UK for example islanders in the Falklands, Indian ocean islands and pacific islanders were all given citizenship regardless of race or ancestry. They were British subjects. But if you had to have some kind of ancestry in the US to be a citizen even if you have lived there your entire life, then it will be discriminatory.
Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents.

I have no objection to a liberal policy that grants U.S. citizenship to every deserving applicant. My objection is to the automatic nature of the current system. It has led to, among other things, businesses offering tour packages to pregnant foreigners for the express purpose of giving birth on US soil. See http://articles.latimes.com.... It has also led to the practice of undocumented people coming into the US in order to have children who eventually, using compassion based applications, bring the rest of their family members into the country. I"m not totally opposed to that either, only that every nation needs to have some measure of control of whom it allows into the country to receive the benefits of citizenship as well as the responsibilities. Otherwise we run the risk of eventually repeating the current Greek experience where a government is totally overwhelmed by a flood of refugees. As to the examples you provided, I would support laws offering citizenship to every high school graduate who has not been convicted of major crimes. I want a system that welcomes people but, that should be a system, not an open unguarded door.
Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents.

I come from the united kingdom of great Britain and northern ireland but I am sure the principle remains the same though the history may differ. First of all, what you are proposing is that a child can be born in, say, New York, grow up there, go to school there, pay taxes there from the moment he starts working, swears allegiance to the flag at school everyday, you can even enlist in the military, buy a house and all the rest of it and still not be considered a US citizen. It is crazy! Imagine going to school with a friend who was born here and had been with you since, well forever, and he wouldn't even have rights as a citizen. I would also be interested to know if a child would eventually get citizenship before 18. In America you (or your parents) have to pass a citizenship test but you must be 18. So that means it would be possible for you to be born here, live here for 18 years and be deported. All legally- at least under your plan! Do I even have to explain why that's bad?
Rescind the Automatic Granting of US Citizenship to Anyone Born in the US of Non Citizen Parents.

Second for rebuttals, third for additional arguments, fourth for rebuttals, fifth for closing statements. BOP is shared. The current right of automatic US citizenship for any person born within the United States or any of it's territories, regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents is outdated and ultimately harmful to the long term interests of the US. This provision of the 14th Amendment was primarily intended to insure the citizenship of the children of freed slaves. That situation no longer exists and the provision should be rescinded. Only the children of parents, at least one of whom is a US citizen should be accorded that right.
Males should live

Men are a disease that must be cut from the earth. All men have ever done is complain and pro create. As my mother once said, "Sorry robert, Im sorry tat this doesnt make your weenie go wild, F*** your life." i live by these words. The argument that men should live is sickening to me and makes me literally want to shoot myself on the spot. There are many ways for the extermination of men to take place. There are methods of human euthanasia and other methods similar to capital pushinment. I will not let my mothers words go without honor, thank you for your time.
Intellectual property rights stifle innovation

"Intellectual property" is an umbrella term for things such as copyright (the right to monopoly on the publication of one's artistic works), patents (the right to monopoly on one's inventions), trademarks (the right to monopoly on one's products' identifying signs, designs and expressions), and more. They were introduced as legal concepts for the purpose of encouraging innovation. I'd like to argue that they have an inverse effect. The debate's structure: -Round 1: General information on the subject and introduction of each side's position. -Rounds 2-4: Rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. -Round 5: Rebuttals permitted, but conclusions are preferable. I hope for an intelligent and productive debate.
I WILL contradict myself

So I purposely repeated my questions then provided an argument in round 4 just to see if Pro could logically refute it, he basically comes back with a “yes it is” response. While there is certainly a logical way to refute my argument, I don’t quite feel Pro made it as he never addressed the definition, or my reasoning for why his argument was not a contradiction. If he never made these arguments he should not be given credit for them. But at this point I’ll just leave it up to the voters to decide how they would like to score this one.
I WILL contradict myself

Contradict: To assert to the contrary or opposite of(1) In the resolution Pro states “I will contradict myself”. In rounds two and three I asked him a set of five questions for which he provided contradictory responses. Going by the definition of “contradict”, his assertion that he will contradict himself was not the opposite of what he said, it was exactly what he said he was going to do so it is not a contradiction. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
US Should Engage More With China Concerning Climate Change

Okay, so I know its been a while but I am finally holding a debate. Ill be con and whoever accepts this is pro. This is a policy debate round so aside from your arguments, please bring up a plan of action. So here is the round structure: Con 1- Definitions Pro 1- Plan Con 2- Refute Plan/ bring up arguments Pro 2- Refute Con/Support plan Con 3- Analyze debate, no new arguments Pro 3- Analyze debate, no new arguments Thank you! I hope to have a great debate!