BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Not having youtube on the IOS6 update.

My opponent has not fully read my previous argument and thus has made an invalid and moot point. There is a superior app available for download from the app store that is far better the old app; it can be launched from the phone just as easily as the old app. The benefit of this is that it is far better than the old app as it is sleeker and easier to use as well as more functional. This means that the removal of the old app and the download of the new will provide a far better user experience. People do not need to use the browser (mentioning Google is irrelevant and reveals my opponents lack of tech knowledge and familiarity) as they can use the standalone app. Furthermore navigating to YouTube on safari will provide a better experience than the old app as the webapp is far better. This means that the removal of the old app will force users to have a better experience. Unfortunately I have had to repeat my points as my opponent was unable to respond to or acknowledge my points. I believe my points still stand.
Not having youtube on the IOS6 update.

My opponent has erroneously stated that one will have to go to safari or of google to upload a video. This is false. One can upload a video to YouTube directly from the Photos application by selecting the video, pressing share and then 'YouTube.' It is easier than ever to upload a video to YouTube from a mobile apple device. While I wish to respect my opponents 'vibe', I must contest that people will lose interest in YouTube. YouTube is increasing in popularity and the movement away from the old integrated app heralds a new age of improved user experience. YouTube has a monopoly on the video sharing market and, with no alternative with a similar community, YouTube will remain popular. There are two approaches now to watching a YouTube video on a mobile device. 1. Webapp. Using safari to watch a YouTube video offers a better experience than the old app; the webapp is in keeping with the upcoming YouTube desktop site in terms of design which offers a very easy platform to access videos. Both sites take up the Web 2.0 ethos with clean interfaces; a step above the clunky old app where to merely read the description one had to move to a separate page from the play button. 2. YouTube app. There is in fact a standalone YouTube app available from the app store that allows one to watch Youtube videos. This is superior to even the webapp as one can comment or read comments while the video is playing in the background. The design is even sleeker than the webapp and more resembles the upcoming desktop site. As well as this, Google can now implement bug fixes and updates without having to go through Apple and their OS; this means less apple interference with Google products, a real benefit for all. Furthermore, one is not directed to the rubbish app from safari having clicked on a video; instead we can enjoy the webapp in all its glory. What have we seen? 1. It is easier than ever to upload a video 2. The experience fro. The webapp and the new standalone app is far superior 3. Updates and fixes for the user can be better implemented. 4. One can choose what platform to view videos from without being redirected.
Kanye West is a Good Influence on Kids

It may be true that Kanye West thinks he is a God. However, the impact of the quote on the younger generation is more important. Most pre teens and teens would realize he is exceedingly egocentric and let this slip by. Kanye also highly discourages blind patriotism, mentioning regularly (like in his song New Slaves from his latest album, Yeezus) that Americans that look up to big brands by Nike and Apple, which is in a way, true. (A quote from the song:"yo n***** can't control Ye!" He barely mentions his past accomplishments and always tells kids and parents alike, to search for true freedom. If you watch some of his interviews (For example, the Breakfast Club, he has some interesting points and has a different way of looking at the world then most people, making him a visionary." Kanye West also donates millions a year to the less fortunate, and describes himself as "A man from the future stuck in today's time." (not a direct quote) He looks down at Tyranny and feels that people should people should be treated as equals, but what gives him the most impact is that he wants his voice to be heard. (Sorry for bad spelling and grammar, typed on phone)
Kanye West is a Good Influence on Kids

First off, Kanye West has an inspiring character. He went through a lot as a kid and got to work with his idol, Jay Z. When kids look up to him, they notice when he says quotes like "They say you can rap about anything except for Jesus, that means guns, sex, lies, video tapes, but if I talk about God my record won't get played huh?" Kanye West once said: "You don't have to be scared of me, because I am loyal. Why are people so scared of creative ideas and so scared of truth? All I want to do is do good." Which is true. Kanye West is a good christian and religious man. There is no reason that parents should be afraid if their kids listen to Kanye West's music.
The legalization and morality of euthanasia

It ends human life as well as suffering,and who can meet criteria, or not? Children? Adults? None of the above? And also, a doctor is not allowed to administer the drug, and as such a perscription should not be allowed. This is legal. So , for arguments sake, I will leave you with the option to give me a longer, more round debate on this subject. So, i believe, in asking you that question, I have all but won. Good luck with winning!
The legalization and morality of euthanasia

Though I am not a doctor, nor any type of physician. It is my belief that euthanasia should become a legal right to all who meet the criteria. Euthanasia should be granted to those who are either terminally ill and/or, nearing the end of their lives with an unbearable amount of pain. In other words, use common sense, leave your religious beliefs at the door (as I have done so for this debate) and keep ignorance to a minimum. Do not simply leave your argument to the substandard of "Suicide is just plain wrong!", or to the famous "Killing people is wrong!" argument. Euthanasia is a necessary and proper process and is in desperate need of legalization. There are many who are left to suffer until their tragic day of death arrives to them. It should not be this way for those people. Euthanasia would most definitely end the suffering of thousands who must deal with their own deaths, and unbearable pain.
Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law

Okay then since I'm incapable and inadequate lets get as you stated right to the point. How can any one person decide that justice has not been enforced. What gives one man the right to choose whether or not he/she has been justified by America. In defense of my second case. What happens when vigilance is used on the innocent guy who just happened to be the one to find a body or discover the crime scene. Because he has reasonable proof and the police dismiss him. Then we say he is guilty and the police didn't enforce justice how can we kill this guy when there is no justice needed. We as civilians better yet as townspeople hear everything that goes on in a city, including the gossip. We as people always judge people biasedly. Therefore we can't say that someone else is needs to be killed. And please next time you post don't try and call me stupid.
Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law

Thank you for the acceptance of this debate. I will, in turn, try to fulfill your wishes of an interesting debate. Now first of lets go over my opponent's case and then refute the arguments made upon my case. First off, let's review his first contention of morality. Morality is derived from the idea of it being "moral" when you are in accordance with the societal norms and needs. In the resolution, it has been pointed out that the government has tried to uphold its laws but has failed to do so. Moreover, what this means is that the "criminal" the vigilante is pursuing will go unchecked without the vigilante. What is moral in the situation would thus become what will be the lesser of the two evils (violating a criminal's liberty and natural rights talked about in his 2nd contention, or letting a criminal roam unchecked throughout a society allowing him to violate multiple people's natural rights). In seeing this, you see that his "Morality" argument is better upheld on the affirmative side. Secondly, let's get to his second contention of "natural rights." This argument is wrong for many reasons: 1) John Locke states that if you violate society (committing crimes), then you are then placed outside of the social contract and are thus not protected by its benefits. For example, one attempting to deprive someone of their rights can't, inturn, decide to "cry wolf" when someone has deprived him of his rights. 2) He went on to talk about an instance in which a trial was used and vigilantes kill the suspected criminal. The problem with this is simple, if the person being tried is given a fair trial and so on, isn't the government enforcing the law? If he has been arrested and is standing trial, that means the government HAS INDEED enforced their laws. The resolution points, only, to situations in which the government has NOT upheld the law. Let's say I decide to allow this argument. The other problem is that the government has pointed out that they have "failed." If the criminal is proven innocent by the courts, then they're saying that they were wrong in this and that the person is ACTUALLY guilty. My opponent bringing arguments stating that they may kill an innocent person is therefore untopical. Since my value of justice, my value criterion of John Locke's theory of administrative justice, and contention two have been (virtually) untouched in today's debate, I'm guessing that my opponent then agrees with me on these issues. Seeing as how so much of my case has been dropped by him is combined with his inability to adequately respond to the points he tried to refute, I see no other ballet in today's debate but affirmative. Thank you
Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law

Contention 1) Morality Morality plays a big issue in this resolution. People mess up all the time whether small or big. Introducing vigilantism will hinder america. People all have there on reasons of doing things and have there on views on life and the things that happen in the world. This is why we don't need to allow vigilantism. I would like to attack my opponents first contention with my second contention Contention 2) Natural rights Now as my opponent has stated it would just be an extension of natural rights. But what about other peoples natural rights. Everybody is essentially promised a right to go to court. Now what happens when the person is innocent but everybody views him as guilty. Then the judge and the jury realize that they have the wrong man so they release him. Well then family and friends of the victim decide to use the idea of vigilantism to repay there friend or family member. Well that guy that they decide to take care to seek revenge, he has just been killed for something that he didn't do. If we needed vigilantism then we shouldn't have a legal system. What this essentially does is give the people the power to convict other people and seek revenge. Now the thing is is that we have a legal system to protect NATURAL RIGHTS. We don't want to take away others natural rights just to give more to one person. Lets keep people equal with fair natural rights. I hope that my opponent will present a good argument.
Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law

When cops go around in singles as you said they don't just pick up anybody they don't pick on a particular person they only pick up law breaking citizens. And when I said we are biased it was focusing on vigilantes not jury's. People here is the problem with vigilantes. Nobody has the same morals. Whether or not we should choose between the life and death of a person as regular people not juries who hold this task but regular people is wrong. What I may see as justice you may see as wrong. Therefore we can't just let people run around revenging people cause they believe justice hasn't been given. So therefore I urge you to vote in negation of this resolution.
Vigilantism is justified when the government fails to uphold the law

First off, I'd like to apologize if you took my statements as me insulting you. It was not my intention, just to point out you're not giving suitable answers. Secondly: When cops ride around in singles (one person in a cop car) and make an arrest; Wouldn't the problem you're trying to present still be present? Yes it does. My third point is, your closing sentences. "We as people always judge people biasedly. Therefore we can't say that someone else is needs to be killed." If we as a poeple are alwas "bias." Then what you're saying is, it doesn't matter whether we're by ourselves or in a group because we will always be bias. So then your putting forth the idea that we will never be able to decide the fait of anything. Moreover, this can't be the case because we allow people to have a jury. What a jury is for, is so each person can give there individual opinion (after they are presented what happened) of whether or not they think this person is guilty. This proves that our independant view does matter and holds precedence.
Reading is more fun than watching a movie

Again, I thank you, my fellow debater, This was my first time on a serious debate like this, and I am so grateful for you to give me that I experience. I do not mind about winning or losing at all, but I am satisfied to have proven my side. I do not mind if you think my argument is invalid; I cannot change people's minds. My argument is valid, I believe; but you do not. I don't see your argument as valid also, for everything that you said was against me, you barely explained. These are just a few of the main reasons why films and books will never be able to replace the other. They do not serve the same purpose as each other. And most of all, they aren't meant to. Movies are for people who do not have much time at all, and books are for other people. In either case, if you truly care for the arts, you should be aware that both authors and movie makers struggle to create. No matter how mediocre you eventually deem their outcome, each creator had spent a chunk of their lives in hopes of engaging you; the audience. I know you would disagree (because that's what you always did in rounds 2,3,and 4) but one thing is for sure: You would continue loving movies as much as I adore them books. Did we settle anything at all? Still I know I spoke of what I believe, and that is enough for me. I do not mind losing nor winning at all. Once again, I thank you for the experience, and for giving me a wonderful debate. I can see you are wonderful because you have a job, and you work out. Probably by now I'd add you as a friend, and if you accept, you would be my first friend here. Have a nice day.
Reading is more fun than watching a movie

I am going to just extend this debate as she is basically doing my job for me She notes this "Movies are often made for an audience that are impatient at best and highly critical at worst. With this in mind and combined with the fact they cost a great deal of money to produce and need to recoup their investment as quickly as possible after being released due to the heavy investment, movies tend to be much faster in pace than books in order to satisfy their demanding viewers." She notes there is a target audience for movies, and by acknowledging that a specific target audience likes movies more than reading, there is no way for her to hold up her BOP. She must then show that reading is more fun on an objective level in order to win this debate. She has openly admitted quite a few times that many people enjoy movies better than reading, so from there it's a short walk as she cannot uphold her BOP and show that books are objectively more fun than movies.
Reading is more fun than watching a movie

No my adversary misunderstands what I am saying. There is no reason to apologize but her argument is subjective. She would have to shown there is an objective way to gauge and value books as better than movies. 1) Sales She also agrees that movies are watched a great deal by many people. This is a topic about fun, and since we can logically conclude that most people go to the movies to watch because they are fun, that is a point in favor of me. People would not simply go to go , they have to have some sort of entertainment value for them to go. My adversaries BOP is to show that books are of a *grater* fun. 2) Graphics Some people don't visualize well. Movies help them see what is in their imagination and thus it is really enjoyable. 3) Time She says longer is better I disagree. Where someone does not have the time to read a book, they can go watch a movie and get the general idea along with fun graphics and depictions of what happened in 1/10 the amount of time. R) Grammar Learning about grammar and new words is a educational benefit. That does not add value to fun, as that is what this debate is about. The rest of her points are also non sequiturs C) Why I will win this debate My adversary has given herself an impossible BOP. She has to show books are *greater* than movies, and she has did nothing but assert that thus far. Therefore she has not affirmed the resolution with validity.
Reading is more fun than watching a movie

I apologize for my argument not being subjective. 1)I also agree to what you said: "box office sells and how many people go the movies and watch things", but I believe that you are also aware of the best-selling books everywhere, not only movies are being viewed mostly. 2) Stating that you are a fan of graphic in movies, some people prefer the surrounding to be formed in their minds. The book makes you the director. There are never bad special effects in books because you create the images in your own head and they come out flawlessly. 3)"Reading books takes longer than watching a movie" is a phrase that people often say when you open up this kind of topic. Some people would argue that it isn't an advantage to be time consuming but in terms of the cost to enjoyment ratio I would very much like my enjoyment to go for more than an hour or two. Of course movies can be viewed with a group, but is there a law stating that you can't share books at all? You open it, you read it. 4)What I hate in watching movies sometimes, is that characters do not mind about grammar, while reading, improves your language. Also, people say, books hurts trees, but then you'll not have education. How can you study without a book? They are for entertainment, so do not worry about "It could take you nearly 20 hours to read a book while movies sum up the book in a hour and a half with great effects and entertainment." Therefore if you are finding a good source of fun like reading a story, you wouldn't bother about how long it gets. You just want the fun. Reading is for everyone, but not every book is for each. "Read is more fun to who?" To anyone who appreciates it.
Reading is more fun than watching a movie

My adversary has the BOP as they are the affirmative 1) Subjective She has to break the subjective barrier and show that reading is superior to movies. This is her burden and with the issue being entirely subjective she almost has not shot. Read is more fun to who? This is generally applied on a on balance level, but with box office sells and how many people go the movies and watch things, along with TV we can clearly see that the mast consensus is movies are better. So if this is an on balance stance the debate ends there. http://www.boxofficemojo.com... http://www.bls.gov... 2) Visual Graphics Graphics are the best part to movies, as it's actually fun to physically see what is going on. Being able to watch and see special effects and sharing the moments with friends and family, is a major advantage. 3) Movies are quicker It gives you a pretty good idea what happens in a book in nearly 1/10 of the amount of time it would take to read it. It could take you nearly 20 hours to read a book while movies sum up the book in a hour and a half with great effects and entertainment. C) My adversary has the BOP to show that books are better than movies, which is an impossible stance as it is subjective
Reading is more fun than watching a movie

Though most people like watching movies because it takes much less time, I'd read longer for more experience rather than watching in a couple hours or so, but in less dimension. In books you can experience how the characters think, how they move, and how they see things in the story, or how they feel about the situation. Instead of just running through the dark and then for some reason veering toward the deserted and creepy building we can sometimes hear their thoughts and the character can explain and justify their logic. The writer takes us to a different world, and in that world, we get to be another person. It makes much more sense for the story, and it also enhances our reading. In movies you see the character running, but what is he/she thinking? Also, we can carry books anywhere, maybe when you are waiting for someone at a local cafe, and for travelling. Do books need recharging at all? No. Does reading a book requires a headphones? No. Carrying a laptop around is a hassle. And yes, we can watch movies on our phones, but but when the picture is that small, I have to wonder what the point is. ~`~`~
Schools should start later

Recommended sleeping hours by age: Preschoolers 3-5 years, 10 to 13 hours 8 School-aged Children, 6-13 years 9 to 11 hours Teenagers 14-17 years, 8 to 10 hours Many teenagers in particular spend several hours a night on homework, often if they have a life outside of school staying up until twelve or later doing homework. According to my source, by high school age students spend around 3.5 hours per night. Schools tend to end around 3:00-3:30 ish, meaning if those students start their homework upon coming home, they will be doing homework until 6:00-7:00. Assuming they do have a life and interests they will finish much later, impairing upon their sleep time. http://www.phoenix.edu... Schools starting later would force most buessnesses to change working hours which would improve the ability of the workers and mental health: https://www.rand.org... Remember I'm only talking about changing the start time, not pushing the end time. Of course it would be best to also lower the amount of homework assigned, but as of now that hasn't happened. A study on the link between sleep deprivation and emotional health in South Korean students: https://www.koreamed.org... A study linking sleep deprivation and performance: http://www.tandfonline.com... Academic One more study showing sleep deprivation: https://med.stanford.edu... According to the https://sleepfoundation.org...: "Biological sleep patterns shift toward later times for both sleeping and waking during adolescence -- meaning it is natural to not be able to fall asleep before 11:00 pm. Teens need about 8 to 10 hours of sleep each night to function best." Meaning that going to bed earlier for better sleep is in many cases simply not possible, and unnatural any whom. -Do you see this being a nationwide change?- Yes -Will moving school times back result in less jobs?-No, companies should and will adapt. To many workers have children for them to not move back with it. This would also likely shift the daily schedule of many consumers meaning companies would have little reason not too. This would mean more sleep for workers which improves productivity any way.