BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ads that fly across your screen are more annoying then the talking ones

"pop out ads are ten times as annoying as talking ones" Now ten times? I would like to remind my opponent that he is arguing for "ads that fly across the screen" and not pop ups. I would also like to remind him that I asked him to back up his claim about slowing down people's computers with facts and he has not done so. I consider that contention dropped. I also think he would be interested to know that I preformed a test- I reloaded a page in which I had encountered a "fly across the screen" ad and had no problems whatsoever. The flying ad had no negative impact. I invite anyone reading this to try the same and find out for themselves. Philosophical claims that "annoyance is in the moment" but I would counter that annoyance felt for a longer time period or more often than when the ad is directly encountered- ie having to turn off one's sound every time one visits a certain website, getting annoyed by the ad when your friend is the one using the computer and happens to be in the same room, getting annoyed with *yourself* because you forgot to turn off the sound and now have to deal with this stupid ad- trumps flashes of annoyance only in the moment the ad appears and only to you personally. Philosophical also worries that porn could be encountered this way; so could pornographic sounds! We have nothing but my opponents guarantee that this does not occur. At least on DDO, since swear words are filtered, encountering pornographic ads strikes me as extremely unlikely, regardless of media. I grant my opponent that accidentally clicking on a flying ad is annoyance that doesn't apply to talking ads, but that is only one thing about them, and I have listed at least 3 that my opponent has been unable to refute.
The ads that fly across your screen are more annoying then the talking ones

My opponent claims I have dropped some contentions. However, this is untrue, and can be verified by simply reading my last argument. "turning your volume off or down can be extremely annoying if one is trying to listen to music while using the internet" I have already refuted this by saying that having to upload another browser is so much worse, seeing as it slows your computer down as well, it is so simple to turn a knnob down or drag a little bar down in comparison. "The mere possibility of an ad manages to control your actions. And again, the ad does not only get on your nerves, but on the nerves of anyone within earshot." Again, as I have said in the last round, which has also been ignored, pop-ups can be jolting too. What about when porn ads pop up and shock people? There are also kids who use the internet who may be schocked by this. Talking ads are more cleaned, and checked for that kind of stuff, thus nothing innapropriate would be saind from a talking ad. " If I don't want to deal with a whiney person, I can leave the room. However, that does not make the person less annoying. If someone jumps in front of me flailing their arms about (silently) and then walks away, while that may also be annoying , it is over quickly. It inevitability makes me carefree in regards to the future." Yes but annoyance focuses on the present. And this debate is talking about the present. If we were to have the option to get rid of one, which would be the greater relief? While the annoyance does fade quickly, we still will have to deal with it sometime in the near future, thus not solving the problem at all. In conclusion: pop out ads are ten times as annoying as talking ones, because not only do they slow down your computer by opening up a whole seperate browser, but they also move in front of your mouse when you are trying to click on something, and bring you to different pages. We dont have to deal with this on talking ads. Thankyou. philosophical
The ads that fly across your screen are more annoying then the talking ones

In refuting my arguments, philosophical completely ignores my contention that turning your volume off or down can be extremely annoying if one is trying to listen to music while using the internet. Additionally he ignores the ability of talking ads to reach out in time and space. If you are going to a website when talking ads are employed, you have to turn off your volume to avoid the threat. The mere possibility of an ad manages to control your actions. And again, the ad does not only get on your nerves, but on the nerves of anyone within earshot. Simply saying "you can turn off the volume" is inadequate. If I don't want to deal with a whiney person, I can leave the room. However, that does not make the person less annoying. If someone jumps in front of me flailing their arms about (silently) and then walks away, while that may also be annoying , it is over quickly. It inevitability makes me carefree in regards to the future. Philosophical also ignores the fact that the startle response is much better documented in relation to sounds than to images, unless an object or image is flying towards someone's face (as detailed on the wiki article). I would challange my opponent to either support his assertion that flying ads slow down computers significantly more than talking ads or drop the issue. I am unable to find any data on the subject and as such this claim is baseless on both sides. In conclusion: while all ads are annoying, the talking ones reach further in time and space as far as annoying consequences, more than making up for their relative evitability. A few seconds irritation at an interruption is far less than one's plans being frustrated by the threat of one continually.
The ads that fly across your screen are more annoying then the talking ones

BELLE: I think philosophical would agree, so no tricks, kay?" Yes , that's how it was intended MY OPPONENTS POINTS: BELLE #1 I negate this, because we can easily turn off our volume instead of hassling trying to find the mute button. It is quite simple and easy to just not have your volume up so loud. BELLE #2 I woul'd have to disagree with this one. Pop up ads can be VERY startling. For example, the talking ads on the side or more or less appropriate with their words. However when you get the pop out ones, you never know what your getting yourself into. One second it could be a gift win and the next second it could be porn! Their are children who use the internet, which makes pop out ads very bad when stuff like that happens. BELLE #3 Again this can be simply handled with by not turning your volume on. However with pop out ads we dont have that option. We get no say in whether one will effect us by popping up randomly and slowing our computer screens. MY POINTS ME #1 The audio on the talking ad files however is already added on the page. The thing that sucks about pop out ads, is they open a whole nother miniature browser, which is infact alot larger and slows a computer down considerably. ME #2 Most talking ads only last about a few seconds. If you were planning on listening to music, you would simply have to turn it up when you clicked on the page, and the ads wouldn't be as annoying or startling seeing as you would have expected it already. With pop out ads you unfortunately don't get that option. ME #3 However the problem here is that peple with slow computers have a much harder time reloading there last page because the ad had interfered. With volume, is as simple as turning a knob down on the speakers, or draggin the little noise bar down, whereas when we have trying to reload a page, it can take more than a few minutes sometimes. http://getsatisfaction.com...
The ads that fly across your screen are more annoying then the talking ones

This is not a debate about whether talking or moving ads are more annoying to philosophical or to me. The burden is reveal which type of ad has more traits generally considered "annoying" associated with it. I think philosophical would agree, so no tricks, kay? I contend that the talking ads are more annoying than the moving ones for the following reasons: 1.It is harder to find the mute button on talking ads than it is to find the close button on moving ads- thus talking ads are more distracting and take more effort to counter 2.Hearing an unexpected sound is more startling than seeing an unexpected popup. Especially if your volume is turned up high, it will have more of an impact on you than simply seeing an image streak across the screen. (the startle response in reference to vision generally has to do with flashes of light or movement close to the face)[1] 3. Talking ads are disruptive to anyone who happens to be within hearing range, rather than just aggravating the individual viewing the webpage. The quantitative amount of annoyance produced by a talking ad (as extended over several individuals) is thus greater. To quickly address my opponents contentions: 1. Talking ads slow computers down as well. Sound files are larger than image files, so even though they are not moving I would call them equal and this contention moot. 2. If you turn your volume down, then you lose the ability to enjoy yourself fully in activities such as listening to music. If anything this is a point for my side since the mere possibility of a talking ad induces you to refrain from an activity which is otherwise enjoyable to you. 3. While this is true, the act of closing an unwanted window or pressing the "back" button on your browser is no more invasive than going to the volume control and turning it down upon encountering a talking ad. For all these reasons, consider the resolution negated. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The ads that fly across your screen are more annoying then the talking ones

I stand in affirmation the resolution: "The ads that fly across your screen are more annoying then the talking ones" for the following reasons. This is meant to be a more light hearted debate. Good luck to whoever decides to accept it :) 1. Slow computers down 2. You can turn your volume down 3. They make you accidentaly click one them. Contention one: Alot of people's computers are slow enough as it is. These ads that fly across the screen open a whole extra browser which can slow a computer down considerably. Not only that but they are annoying! Why must we go and exit them out when with talking ads we don't physically have to do anything? Contention two: You can easily turn the volume down for talking ads. They don't pop out on you while your trying to do something, also. The voice really aren't all that bad in comparison to having to physically act on the pop out ads. Contention three: They make you accidentally click on them. You could be trying to type in the forums, or trying to click on the "home" tab, and out of nowhere this lame ad pops up and blocks your action. Not only that but when you accidentally click on it, very slowly opens up another browser. And again, for those who have slow computers, VERY vexing. Conclusion: I think that fly out ads are way more annoying than speaking ads, because peaking ads don't adversely effect anyone as much as pop out ads. Thankyou -philosophical
Grape Juice is better than Orange Juice

poop is brown not purple. did u know that brown is just a darker shade of orange. Im pretty sure thats what those chunks in oj are anyways. POOP! grape juice has much nutrients. the only reason oranges are so popular is cuz lil kids eat them cuz they dont know what is healthy and what is not. grapes are popular becuz they are famlit and they are very awesome. I think grape juice should be named the most popular fruit on earth. it is amazing and gr8. oranges are...dumb and....weird
Atheism is a Religion

This is not a forfeited round as we agreed that I wouldn't present arguements in my last round, so I'll just close with a summation. Thanks to con for the opportunity to debate this issue. I believe I've given good reasoning for my claim that atheism is a religion, and I've backed it up with something solid. I've included criteria for determining what a religion is, as well as presented evidence that other entities have determined that atheism qualifies, as well. I've shown that one does not have to worship a deity for their belief system to qualify as a religion. Con has given nothing other than his preferred definition of religion. It all boils down to, what is atheism. I've presented arguments, reasoning, and sources showing that atheism is more than a definition, including con's own words. Con is simply standing strong on his insistence that you accept a simple definition, as the totality of what atheism is. Ultimately, the answer lies with you, the reader. I ask that you consider what you've read in this debate, and vote pro. Thanks again to IllegalCombatant, and thank you for reading.
Atheism is a Religion

medic0506 has said recently a few times that "atheism is a religion". Now this has being said by medic in forums with some arguments/claims to go with it. I have not being impressed. But such is the nature of forum threads is that they usually have a lower standard of rigor than debates, as among other things debates tend to keep the subject in focus and is harder to derail and more time can be spent on the arguments and counter arguments. As such I would like medic to enlighten us all as to what compels him to believe and tell others that "atheism is a religion", and see how these claim fair against some scrutiny. I won't be making any arguments in round 1, to compensate I ask that medic not put any arguments in the last round.
We shouldn't have children.

The proposition failed to provide any answers to my questions nor any arguments in the third round. Despite his forfeiting the last round, I applaud the Pro for his engagement in this intriguing debate. I will conclude my arguments in this round. People should and must have children. Reproducing is the ultimate goal of all life forms whether they are able to recognize the process. Like Pro stated, humans have the cognitive ability of realizing their instinctive needs. However, this is not a reason to stop furthering our species. In addition to fulfilling the purpose of all lives, reproducing also provides numerous benefits to many. Children are given the opportunities to enjoy their lives and given chances to contribute to the society. Parents are able to taste the joy, happiness and pride of nurturing and watching their children mature. Humanity benefits by being able to further its existence on Earth and the society benefits by increased number of strong, dedicated citizens.
We shouldn't have children.

Children are problematic because in truth they care about themselves. Therefore, it's not really a benefit having them. We have to dedicate ourselves to things we love to do. You are sacrificing yourself if you decide to have children because you'll have to give away your money, time, and stress into them. It's better not to overpopulate the earth in order to reduce pollution and global warming. The children might suffer a lot too. If you are alive you are alive already, but why make someone alive. Because if you are alive you have to struggle and anyway you'll die. Though children can bring happiness, and they can be happy too, it's a lot of work.
The elites agenda is never their true agenda

Pro mentioned that the rich have strong ties with the governments all around the world, which is often true, however this influence is not homogeneous. The rich have way greater influence in some countries (like most countries in the Americas, excluding Canada), while way less in others (such as in the Nordic countries). And again the rich are not hiding their "agenda," they've just all got the same interest of protecting their wealth, which they protect in many ways, which often includes influencing politics. All those rich people you've mentioned live exclusively in the US, where the rich truly have greater influence, due to the indirect political system and high GINI. Which is interesting, because Switzerland taxes its richest citizens, on the confederal level, with 13.2%, but due to a more direct political system, the rich there can't control the country. The rich have influence, but the question that pro did not answer remains open. Is there any objective evidence that rich people secretly cooperate to achieve goals they did not disclose to the public? No, but there are a ton of individual cases, where individuals, not groups, heavily influenced politics for their personal purposes, usually to make money. We call this political corruption.
The elites agenda is never their true agenda

You posted in your response the following,"First of all the elite, if we recognise them as people, who have significant influence on our society, are not a single entity......." The super wealthy such as the Rockefellers The Kennedys, Johm Kerry.. Hines fortune, Clintons,George Soros, are united in their objectives. The wealth and special privileges of massive wealth that the ordinary citizen is unable to comprehension and have the ability to grasp just what such wealth might mean to those who possess it. Those who possess wealth restrict their association to those of similar wealth and position all around the world and because of this think of themselves as citizens of the world not of one particular country and don't have a loyalty to any particular nation.Their associates, as their investments, are world wide as are those that they associate with. This shared feelings of the wealthy being citizens of the world causes them to believe that their wealth would allow them to continue to live well no matter if a calamity would strike one individual country. In a Book by Charles Gasparino, titled "BOUGHT AND PAID FOR," the author exposes the connections that the wealthy have with government and those in positions of power in the government. The wealthy also have the ability to strongly influence what policies are put into effect by that government. The wealthy do it through such entities as the federal reserve, banking institutions such as Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and by financing politicians who are in position to further the wealthy's special interests. The wealthy are united in their attitudes of the wealthy that they are unique in believing that they are citizens of the world and owe no special allegiance to any nation such as the working class of citizens hold. ".....a basket of deplorables ," as Hillary Clinton previously had remarked when running for president.
The elites agenda is never their true agenda

You are correct in the statement that you made in your acceptance of the debate that the " the elite's agenda truly is their agenda...."and has never changed. The elites true agenda that they are pursuing and have been pursuing since the Franklin Delano Roosevelt " New Deal," hasn't changed only the subterfuges used change over time. I previously mentioned several Philanthroic foundations of wealthy individuals that donated money to benefit certain Initiatives they were interested in promoting. This quote gives a different more accurate perspective : "Philanthropy given by the wealthiest of families foundations that they set up are not always charitable donations given without prejudicial motives, prejudicial motives to directly enforce their personal agendas on society...." Author unknown.. "CharityNavigator.org added the Clinton Foundation to its "watch list......the Clinton Foundation is one of only 23 charities on the watch list." As ..."An SDS radical once wrote, "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." In other words, the cause of a political action " whether civil rights or women's rights " is never the real cause; women, blacks and other "victims" are only instruments in the larger cause, which is power." Quote by discoverthenetworks.org In the book by Saul D. Alinski," Rules For Radicals," The Eighth Rule: " Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose." The wealthy, and when I refer to the wealthy, I am referring to such families as the Clintons, The Hines foundation, The the-Rockefeller foundations The Ford foundation, the Gates Foundation, George Soros backed Foundations as the wealthy who have a agenda which they contribute to enforce their true agendas, not their publicly stated objectives.
The elites agenda is never their true agenda

The elite intelligentsia , those who supposedly have only the most noblest of intentions when they promote some grand plan for society oft times have a hidden agenda which they wish to see that the rest of mankind Obediently submit to. The elite are if anything resourceful in finding other elite who are of like mind and will contribute large sums of money in the form of grants and talent to promote the elite's agenda along. the elite would never openly reveal the real agenda that they're interested in foisting on the rest of the world but hide their true agenda behind just stated goals as saving the world from Global warming, or over population, threatening the worlds ability to sustain ever growing population any longer. Margaret Sanger, The Ford foundation, Gates Foundation the United Nations, Were quick to lend a hand in carrying out the elites agendas . In a book , " Fatal Misconception, " by Matthew Connelly, he reveals that there was a lot of deception being carried out by those elite who had a hidden agenda which they were really interested in achieving and in the course of time switched their stories about what they were attempting to accomplish. In the end, the objective and agenda of these elite was to gain power and subjugation of other humans to their will "An SDS radical once wrote, "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." In other words, the cause of a political action " whether civil rights or women"s rights " is never the real cause; women, blacks and other "victims" are only instruments in the larger cause, which is power." Quote by discoverthenetworks.org
The existence of god

If anyone who believes in god is up for a REAL debate, and not a repetitive excuse for one, please challenge me This was a pathetic debate. Maybe next time a smart Christian willing to be respectful, factual, and not a total idiot will debate with me. I win, you lose. You have done nothing but spew insults, say I am going to hell, and send excerpts from the Bible as proof, even though I have said multiple times that any human could of wrote the Bible. I have countered all of your arguments, yet you still repeat them. I don"t hear god, because YOU have proved to me that there is no god to hear. The fact that you have stalled this debate without any defence, arguments, or evidence, proves to me that god doesn"t exist. You say my arguments are all opinions, when they are all facts, some of which were even from the bible you hold so highly! You on the other hand have done nothing but insult, repeat anecdotes and opinions, and say I"m going to hell without proof that hell exists! You say bantering about opinions is stupidity, when all you have done is scream opinions like the devil you are so afraid of! Isn"t wrath a sin? Truth is defined by perception, so don"t say it"s okay if it"s the truth, so aren"t YOU the sinner! I still don"t believe in god, for you have proven to me that god doesn"t exist. I was trying to be respectful, but you were so abtuse and disrespectful that I don"t think that"s possible. Read everything both of us wrote, and you will see the winner, even if you are a Christian. Am I being obnoxious? Yes, but my opponent was 10 times worse.