BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Media

Although the basic use of social media is imperative to our society, abuse is also apart of the here and now. You say that social media allows us to interact with others we may not be able to see everyday, but it also allows people we don't even know to obtain information about our personal lives. The social networking website, Facebook, is a great way to keep updated on the lives of family and friends who may not be near by, but if you do not set your privacy settings anybody who has a Facebook account can access your information, family photos, your location at the time you posted a status. It is amazing in keeping connected, but is it really worth the risk of letting a stranger know everything about you and your family?
Social Media

Social media has became a defining part of this age. Take a walk through a mall, restaurant or even a park or a subway and you will see people of all ages tweeting, texting or tumbling their time away. And although social media can be an annoying and at times rude distraction I believe it holds more value than it does problems. Social media, when used correctly is a way to keep in touch with people all over the world, see what your friends are doing and find out news faster than ever before. It can and is often abused, but the basic principals which it was formed upon are still used and are much more important than the reasons to rid ourselves of it.
Social Media

While I agree with how great social media is for connecting and getting information, the cons are far worse then not being able to read a post. I understand wanting to take risks, but is your safety or others safety really worth it? Control is huge factor in this controversy. Yes, we all have the ability to control what information is put out there, but even if we kept out information private someone can ALWAYS get to it. People are trained in computers and today hackers are everywhere. Not just hacking into your social media accounts, but also into your personal files. While social media allows for major help in criminal justice, researching, and sending out important notices, they are also a prominent component in internet safety and personal safety. Life is all about taking risks and living life to the fullest, but I would rather spend a full life knowing my identity is safe, than risking it all. Face it, our identity is one of those things no one should be able to touch, but nowadays through social media it's anyone's game.
Social Media

While those are all valid points, I believe that anything we have the power and ability to change and have complete control over is not something that can be so heavily weighted. And as for those people who create false identities, I think that the person who they talk too needs to think about the safety of the situation and not be so trusting of their new internet friend, especially not to the point of meeting up with them. Yes it happens and yes it's dangerous, but again we have complete control over it. In conclusion I still believe that there are far more pros to social media than there are cons. Criminals can now be caught easier by using social media, and their interactions on the site to find them, networking through things like LinkedIn offer new ways of making connections with people to further a career which have never been possible before, sites like Change.org allow for people to sign petitions to contribute to the world as a while, not just local govenment and the world is completely opened up to is when we used these sites. There is a risk factor in involved, but there is a risk in everything, it's what you do with it and how you use it that make it such a necessity to our society, and in general such a great benefit to living in this age.
Social Media

My point of peer pressure does not contradict the statement of obsessing over our phones, rather helps to support it. iPhones today are capable of group messages with multiple people in one message, Facebook also has this capability. If it is 11 o'clock at night and everyone is still talking in the message, you won't want to go to sleep because then you will miss what everyone says and won't be able to read it until the morning after the fact. This leads to my next point of how social media limits social interaction. I'm sure we have all seen a group of people sitting at a table not talking to one another with a phone in their hands. Although you are still "interacting" with the online world, you are missing out on the real connection of face to face interaction. Another issue is online predators and Catfish. People have the ability to create a person and pretend to be someone they are not. There are many cases in which a young girl will think they are talking to a boy their age and they will meet them in person and it will a predator who is well over the age they said they were. This is an extremely dangerous and is all caused by social media.
Social Media

Yes Snapchat is a scary type of social media for this exact reason, but safety is really not as big an issue as so many people believe it to be. Location settings can be turned off, your pictures can be set to private and you can easily decide not to post a status about how your house will be empty for the next week while you jet off to Florida. And if you are going to argue peer pressure as a reason that we obsess over our phones, then your previous point of health concerns becomes invalid unless your bed is shared by your friends who are all tweeting, snapping and texting. Yes our peers play a huge role in our decision making, but at some point you have to decide to choose things for yourself, in more serious situations than whether or not to respond to a text at 1 am. Social media's pros could not exist without it's fully controllable cons. If you want to be able to find information at the drop of a hat, you may have to risk checking your twitter and getting distracted, but you will be able to reign yourself in if you have the self control to realize that the task at hand is more important than whether or not you see what your friend had for breakfast or is currently watching on TV.
Social Media

The abilities that phones have today are amazing, I agree with that, but it's the moderation of them. The fact that it is the peoples free will and choice is correct, but when everyone around you is doing something peer pressure becomes a factor and it is hard not to join in on all the fun everyone else seems to be having. Our world has become extremely reliant upon our phones and social networks that everything you do revolves around them. As I previously mentioned the issue of safety is extremely important in regards to social networks. Not only being able to set your privacy settings, but also different apps and websites that say certain things will be protected, how do you really know they are telling the truth? For example, a fairly new app called Snapchat is when you take pictures and send them to someone and depending on the time limit will disappear within a maximum of 10 seconds. How do you really know they disappear? Even though you can't see them anymore and the person you sent them to can't see them, they have to have gone somewhere. It is like a text message almost, even thought you delete a message it can still be found somewhere, it is never completely erased.
Are human brains done or near the end of evolution.

That said, yes, I believe human brains, in their current state, are either at the final stage of or nearly at the final stage of natural evolution. My opponent states that human bodies and brains have changed over the millenia. This is correct. However, they ignore the process by which this occurred- natural selection. I argue that humans are much less susceptible to natural selection now than ever before, and compared to other organisms. In modern society, humans rule the Earth. There's no way around it. We have modified and adapted to our environment like no other creature. I believe have reached or nearly reached the end of our evolutionary path because we have very little to adapt to. We have technology to survive harsh weather, we are not subject to predators, we have advanced methods of catching all types of prey. In essence, humans have little to no need to evolve any further from our current state. While the body or brain may be enhanced technologically, our natural evolution is no longer necessary. Humans are the evolutionarily fittest creatures on earth.
Are human brains done or near the end of evolution.

I do not believe that humans a done evolving. The past 2.6 million years humans have used our brains effectively to make tools. we have changed physically with our bodies over the millennia so why wouldn't our brains. scientist have discovered that our minds have been expanding exponentially over the last 1/3 of our evolutionary timeline. the last 10,000 years are brains have apparently been getting smaller because of limited nutrition. But this is only the the size of the brain not its complexity and we have only recently been able to research that
Civilization 4 is the best strategy game.

Thank you for the wonderful debate, UrbanEagle! Allow me to rest my points: Counter Arguments 1) In response to counter argument 2, my opponent, perhaps, does not know how a settler could turn into a worker. I'll tell you. If a settler went into your house and camped there, with the law supporting slavery, you could turn him into a worker by forcing him. How is this not realistic? You can convert a settler into a worker. 2) I'm sorry about not responding to your point about religions. It was a fact, just like how you did not respond to my point about better stats and units. 3) You stated that we should use logic in the debate, so I will use it to argue with your second argument. How can a city fight back against garrison units without an army? Plant a bunch of land bombs and mines and your done. Logic. 4) Civ. V also meets this definition perfectly. Science, check. Art, check. Combining and employing, check. Everything in the definition, check. Therefore, Civ 5 also meets the definition. 5) Strategy does not mean realistic in certain cases. For example: Warcraft III. Warcraft III is still a strategy game even though it is make believe and is not realistic. Another example is Starcraft II. 6) My opponent has not refuted much of my arguments, whereas I have at least tried to refute his arguments, and I have also refuted many, almost all, of my opponent's arguments. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Voter's votes (Just My Idea) Agree with before the debate: UrbanEagle Agree with after the debate: UrbanEagle Conduct: Ethopia619 Spelling and Grammar: Ethopia619 Made more convincing arguments: UrbanEagle More reliable sources: Ethopia619 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comments I give thanks to my opponent for this outstanding debate. I also give thanks to the voters. Thank you. Vote Con. Thanks!
Civilization 4 is the best strategy game.

My opponents first contention was that Civ. 5 has "peace treaties" and Civ. 4 does not. This is untrue Civ. 4 has "Open Boarders" agreements wich are the equvillant to "Peace Treaties. " In addition in Civ. 4 one can also make "Deffensive Pacts" and "Trade Agreements. " In Civ. 4 interaction with other Nations is more important than in Civ. 5 My opponent also said how Civ. 5 was more realistic. He gave the example of how one can convert a settler unite into a worker. I ask how this makes a game nore realistic. I argue that being able to "convert" a unite into another is infact less realistic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd also like to point out that my opponent did not respond to my point about religons. Civ. 4 allows one to found Buddihism, Hinduisim, Judaism, Confuciansim, Taoism, Christianity, and Islam. All these religons give a civilization culture points and effect how your thought of by other nations. All of this was cut from Civ. 5 My opponent also did not respond to my arguemnt about how a city can fight back against garrison units with out any sort of an army. My opponent deffined strategy as: "Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations. " Civ. 4 meets this deffinition perfectly one needs to mind his/her civilizations culture, research, and military and be able to use them all in unison inorder to create the better civilization. I proved that Civ. 4 is more startegic by proving that it is more realistic. Civ. 4 has religon Civ. 5 does not, the real world has religon so in this case Civ. 4 is more realistic. In Civ. 5 a city without an army can, in real life a city without an army cannot deffend itself, Civ. 4 is more realistic. (Also, the fatc that cities can deffend them selves without an army makes the game LESS strategic becuase one needs to worry less about military. )
Civilization 4 is the best strategy game.

Greetings UrbanEagle, Counter Arguments 1) In response to counter argument 1, my opponent has stated, "Civ. 4 is till triumphant." However, Civ. V cities can form peace treaties. Whereas Civ. 4 cannot. 2) My opponent has stated that Civ. 4 is more realistic. This is false because nations or cities can have a peace treaty, whereas Civ. 4 cities and nations cannot. You could also capture a Settler and command him to b a regular worker. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) I would like to define strategy by: "Also, strategics. the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations." 2) Gametrailers.com gave Civ V a 9.4 out of 10. 3) Civ. V has many more stats, victory conditions, and units than Civ. 4. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) http://dictionary.reference.com... 2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CIVILIZATION-V-FRONT-OF-BOX.jpg 3) www.civilization5.com/ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comments I thank my opponent for this debate and the quick response. Good luck!
Civilization 4 is the best strategy game.

It is fine that you have chosen Civ. 5 infact I think it will add to the fun of this debate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. My opponent has said that Civ. 5 has additional "flavor" I interpret "flavor" as being in game culture. As far as in game culture goes I blive Civ. 4 is till triumphant. In Civ. 4 a player can research certain technology leading to the discovery of ceartain religons. Religons add culture and can also lead to tension between other civilizations. In civ. 5 religons were removed completely thus chopping out a large aspect of in game culture or "flavor" as my opponent reffers to it as. 2. Civ. 4 is more realistic- The fact that a city no longer needs garison units to deffned itself may be more convieniant but is less realistic. In real life cities just can't fight back without any sort of an army. In addition like I stated earlier Civ. 5 has no religons while the real world obviously does.
Civilization 4 is the best strategy game.

Hello Pro! First of all, I will like to say is that this is a pretty good topic. I hate debating about politics all the time. I would like to ask my opponent if I could state Civilization V is better. Counter Arguments (Well, none actually. All of what you said is basically true.) _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) Civilization V is way better than Civilization 4 includes most or almost all of your contentions and it also has AI-controlled leaders, which has a unique personality, determined by a combination of "flavors." 2) City warfare has been revamped. Whereas cities in previous versions of Civ relied entirely on garrisoned units for defense. Therefore, Civ V is the ultimate version of Civ. Civ V cities could defend themselves. Captured cities can be annexed, razed, or transformed into puppet states. 3) Civ V has more units and simpler transportation devices. There is even a balance between ranged and melee units, therefore, this is even harder. 4) City-States can be conquered outright, or befriended, via bribery or services. 5) Social Policies replace the "Civics" government system of Civilization IV. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) gameaxis.com/civilization-v-possibly-the-best-strategy-game-not-called-starcraft-ii/ - Singapore 3) www.gamecriticsawards.com/nominees.html _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Comments I thank my opponent for started this fun debate. I await his response. Good luck to you, Pro!
Civilization 4 is the best strategy game.

Greetings and I thank whom ever excepts. This is a nice break from hard core pollitics and becuase its pretty much oppinionated I ask that all voters leave the "Most reliable source" catagory tied becuase after all this debate will consist of logic and oppinion. Contention 1- The Civ. 4 is the best startegy game becuase it is turn based. After making a serries of moves a player then "ends his turn" and then all of the units are reffreshed and then can move again or take new orders. This turn based set up forces players to think carefully before using up a precious turn. Contention 2- Civ. 4 has a lot of little things going on in addition to the main goal. In Civ. 4 besides merely waging war a player still needs to worry about his civilizations happiness, productivity, research level, culture, size, welath, and government type. Civ. 4 has so many more little features than other "strategy" games like Starcraft. Contention 3-In Civ. 4 there are many ways to win. In many strategy games the only way to win is to wipe out all of your foes but in Civ. 4 there are many others. Space Race- Be the first to complete the rocket and get to the moon. Score- Have the highest score Domination- Destroy all other players Time- Be the oldest empire when the game ends Become world leader- Construct the united nations and then be elected world leader Have the largest empire- own the most land
Should Same-Sex Marriage be legal in The USA

A1: We are all people in this world.My opponent writes in response to my abortion analogy, ""The reason men dont get abortions is because it is impossable for a man to have a baby"" This is correct but my opponent misunderstands my argument. In fact, he has shown why I am correct. The reason it is impossible for a man to have an abortion even if he wanted to, is because whatever he does would not fit the definition of an abortion. Now as to marriage, the reason why a homosexual couple would not be able to get married even if it were allowed is because the union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman would not fit the actual definition of marriage, which is between a man and a woman. So my opponent is actually wrong when he claims that it is possible for a gay couple to be married because a gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. A2: Same-Sex Marriage on the U.S. economyMy opponent again misunderstands my argument. Of course, tecnhically, bringing money to the economy is a good thing but this is strictly a moral issue not an economic one. The U.S. could bring money to the economy in a number of ways that would never be considered because when they are considered from a moral standpoint, the U.S. decides that any money brought to the economy is not worth it. An example would be for the U.S. to sell off all of it's nuclear arsenal to the highest bidder. The U.S. would most likely rake in billions but it would never consider doing so.A3: Reputation of AmericaThis argument only works in my opponent's favor if we also accept his other arguments which I have shown to be faulty. He claims that most of his arguments are moral in nature but, out of his three arguments, one is economic, one based on reputation, and the other based on egalitarianism. One of his arguments is moral in nature and I have shown it to be a faulty argument that makes wrong assumptions on what marriage actually is.
Should Same-Sex Marriage be legal in The USA

He said "In the United States it is recognized that a woman has a right to an abortion. A woman has this right specifically because the fetus grows insider her body and because she has authority over what is done to her body. In other words, she has the right because she is a woman and her body functions how a woman's typically would. Men consequently, do not have the right to an abortion because the fetus does not grow in their body and so they do not have personal autonomy over it. This simple fact is the very reason that a man is not afforded the right to an abortion. So while technically a man is not given the right to an abortion because of his gender, it is not sexist because the gender is specifically what is taken into account when assigning this specific right. "Then at the end of this argument,He says"So for the same reason that a man does not have the right to an abortion, a homosexual couple does not have the right to become a married couple. "-First off, The reason men dont get abortions is because it is impossable for a man to have a baby, no law was ever writien that they are not allowed to get an abortion, why? simply because they can't. But on the other hand, it is possable for gays to get married, there is nothing physicaly stoping them from getting married, so it is possable for a gay couple to get married unlike a man to get an abortion because that is impossable. So by not letting a gay couple Marry is not because they cant (which they can), its because of discriminationA2:Con says that this is an irrelevent argument,but let me repeate what the title of the debate says. .. .. "Should Same-Sex Marriage be legal in The USA? "so my point i was making for that argument was, "Yes, it should be legal because it would bring money to the economy. "I would like to ask Con how this is not a relevent argument? Is bringing money to the economy not a good thing? A3: Con says"The United States should not make public policy decisions purely based on the opinion of other countries", Now, if you have read the other arguments i have, you would know that they not purely based on the opinion of other countries. They are mostly based on moral. I didnt put that argument up as an only reason to legalize same-sex marriageI have refuted my opponents arguments, and i have brought up an argument for same-sex marriage