BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children should be allowed to watch TV during a school week

Like always, Devil's Advocacy should be fun. :) Good luck to both of us! By school week we'll be assuming monday to friday for the sake of this debate. First off, my opponent makes a point about censorship. While many parents may be cautious about what their children watch on T. V this isn't always the case. Often times you'll see 10 year old watching shows such as "South Park" and "Family Guy" that are meant for an older audience. These shows address mature themes such as sex and drugs. People are often influenced by what they see in the media. Children are especially vulnerable. If they see something on T. V that seems "cool" such as smoking they'll be more inclined to try it. Another concern is body image. This can often be a problem among youth, teenage girls in particular. If they see a super skinny girl on T. V they may be inclined to eat less and eventually turn to anorexia. Children often come to believe T. V is an accurate representation of how society should be. . http://education.stateuniversity.com... Secondly, my opponent argues that time can be set aside for watching T. V. However, a few important factors are left out. One is scheduled show times. What if the shows the child wants to watch are not playing during the times set aside for T. V? Also, what if those shows are longer than the time slot set aside? Wouldn't it be better to not introduce these shows to children at all? They'll become accustomed to watching them and will want to continue as each new episode often ends in cliffhangers. This can be distracting from other things, just wanting to know how the show ends. While my opponent mentions that certain shows can be educational so can books. Some companies, for example, publish educational books that can be fun and interactive for a child(. http://www.kindbook.com...). These books can be often more entertaining than sitting in front of a screen, plus the children won't get getting influenced by corporate advertising and sucked into buying various things they probably don't need that'll help them save money as they get older. . http://www.newdream.org... Lastly, my opponent argues that T. V itself isn't harmful. However, watching too much of it can be. As mentioned earlier, due to cliffhangers and such to suck the audience into a show people can often get addicted to watching certain shows on T. V. This can lead to lack of exercise which in the long term can lead to obesity which 12% of Canadian children aged 2 to 17 suffer from(. http://www.statcan.gc.ca...). It can also lead to further difficulties such as lack of socialization with other children. I look forward to my opponents refutations. Now onto him. ..
Children should be allowed to watch TV during a school week

Now to move onto my closing arguments. .. My opponent insists that parents monitor what their children are watching on T. V. Once again, I'll like to emphasize that this isn't always the case. It's a similar situation regarding violent video games and higher rated movies. Many young children play games such as Grand Theft Auto which could potentially give them the message that a gangster life is glamourous and make the child in question more aggressive. . http://www.pamf.org... Why would it be any different with T. V shows and movies? Secondly, my opponent addresses my point about the media's influence on children. While I agree that campaigns can be started in order to try to get harmful content removed it is not always possible. In a democratic western society such moves could be considered censorship and an attack on free speech. Censorship and democracy are two things that usually don't mix too well. Thirdly, my opponent addresses the issue of time. He is correct that many T. V shows can be viewed on DVD's if the child can't view the shows within the allotted time slot. However, this is an extra purchase that could cost more money that could instead be spent on enrolling a child in recreational activities. These activities are superior to watching T. V as they could get the child out socializing, trying new things, and getting healthy. Finally, the issue of books is addressed. My opponent mentions "Barbie". Often these books contain little educational content so it's likely the child wouldn't be seeing skinny girls in books if they're not reading things such as "Barbie". There are books that are much better for education that don't feature skinny girls such as Dora The Explorer(. http://di1.shopping.com...) and Sesame Street(. http://cdn2.overstock.com...). Again, I thank my opponent for an interesting debate. Now I'll pass it off to the audience. .. Please vote fairly! :)
Incest should not be illegal.

My opponent has failed to give an argument against incest that would require society to make it illegal. A victimless crime should not remain illegal. I remind my audience one final time. Emotion rules reason. Don't let it. If you are able to provide arguments against incest, That is great. I'll debate you on it and would love my mind changed to agree with my emotions as well. However, Your personal disdain and emotions, Like mine, Play no part in who won this debate. My conclusions in R2 stand. My opponent is welcome to introduce new arguments in his R3 conclusion round if he wishes, I'll reply if necessary in the comments. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
In A Fight Between the Star Fox Team and Jigglypuff, the Star Fox Team Would Most Likely Win

As Pro, I am affirming the resolution that in a fight between the Star Fox Team and Jigglypuff, the Star Fox Team would most likely win. Definitions: Fight - Star Fox Team - Jigglypuff - Win - Structure:Round 1: Pro Explains, Con accepts.Round 2: New Arguments, NO REBUTTALS.Round 3: New Arguments and rebuttals.Round 4: Rebuttals, NO NEW ARGUMENTS OR EVIDENCE.Cross-Examination:Questions can be asked to the opponent at any time in the comments. The opponent must answer any and all questions asked during the debate. VOTERS MAY CONSIDER CROSS-EXAMINATION WHEN VOTING.This was really elaborate so if you accept, please don't forfeit. Good luck.
Gay Marriage

I'm arguing from the position that gay marriage should be legal, but I will go a step further. Government should have no influence in determining what type of marriage should be legal and what type of marriage should not be legal. Marriage is a personal decision, and it often is religious. Why should government have control over this? A person should be able to marry a broomstick, a chair, a sofa, a bird, a cow, a blade of grass, or anything. It doesn't matter. People should be able to make marriage contracts, and the state should not interfere. The reason for my position on this topic comes from the understanding that small government is the only acceptable type of government. I am not arguing on the morality of gay marriage. It is debatable on whether homosexuality is or is not a good moral choice. The thing is that it doesn't matter. The only necessary use of government is to stop people's freedom from being taken away (police force stopping thieves and murderer's, rules against fraud, etc) and defense. If two people want to get married, they should have the right to make such a contract. If three people want to get married, they should have the right to make such a contact. If four people get married, they should have the right to make such a contract. If one person wants to marry himself or herself, they should have the right to make such a contract. Article one, section 10, of the constitution states this: "No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Con-tracts...." (1) Marriage is indeed a contract. Why does government feel like they need to interfere with this? Even if you aren't just talking about America, I still think freedom works, and if we don't protect the rights of the minorities of society, our society will turn into an oligarchy. You don't need to agree with homosexuals, but you should have to respect their rights as human beings to be left alone as long as they do not infringe on your rights. (1) http://www.heritage.org...
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is against god's laws, should it be legal, or not? I am against gay marriage due to the fact that it is Adam and EVE not Adam and Steve. Just so the world knows, being homosexual or heterosexual is in your genes. Why else would homosexual men have higher pitch voices than heterosexual men? Gay marriage should be illegal due to the fact that so many homosexual men say "I'm a proud catholic" when what they are is against their religion.
People are more Anti-Trump then they are Pro-Hillary

Even if we do the 30% on top of what Donald Trump estimates and round up to 20 billion towards the wall (physical, detection, surveillance), then the 7 year mark where it exceeds initial cost, it still pales in comparison to what illegal immigrants cost the government. Illegal immigrants, 52% alone from Mexico the rest mostly from the Americas, cost our federal, state and local government $113 billion annually in expenditures, taking into account taxes the state and local taxes they pay on goods and services. Just at the federal level, the deficit is over $10 billion. Even if we make a dent in that $113 billion, it still outweighs the projected cost of protecting our border with a physical wall, more border agents, more surveillance and detection, a cost that in Mr. Trump's outline Mexico will offset. Illegal immigrants do benefit us by paying taxes, but the stress on health($5.9b), education($52b), and crime(170k+ convicted felons)exceeds those benefits.
People are more Anti-Trump then they are Pro-Hillary

Of course wanting to halt or slow illegal immigration is reasonable. What isn't, however, is the wall. The wall would be totally ineffective and the cost would be higher than what most people probably know. At first, Drumpf said the wall would cost about 4 bil. Then he said 6-7 bil. Then 10 bil. Then - "maybe 12." So he's gone from 4 bil to 12 bil. Experts say the cost of everything will cost 30% more than what he estimates, provided the costs of what it takes to just build the wall. So at least 16 bil. Now, the real cost comes in 7 years - when maintenance exceeds initial costs in those few years. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... This video with John Oliver goes into excellent detail of what else I can't afford to say here. It's funny and in some areas sad. Cites the info. This too. http://www.pewresearch.org...
People are more Anti-Trump then they are Pro-Hillary

Let's have a go at one of his hottest policies:Immigration. I think it is a reasonable policy to try and stop illegal immigrants from coming into the United States. Looking at what he has actually said about immigration I don't see any form of racism. This Wall that people are furious about. I believe that the main opposition to it is based upon hatred towards Donald Trump himself. By seizing going after the billions of dollars in remittances sent back to Mexico every year, Trump will demand a one-time payment towards the wall in order for Mexico to maintain that cash flow. All he is doing, is completing the wall that already exists. As for his ban on Muslims coming from countries associated with terror organizations, travel bans and restrictions on immigrants in the interest of national defense has been done throughout our history. When attacks occur in the US in the name of Islam should we not want to close our borders to those coming from our enemies strongholds?
People are more Anti-Trump then they are Pro-Hillary

In some regard, you're absolutely correct. At times people, including the media (sadly) go after Drumpf's grotesque personality more than his more grotesque policy positions. The people you are referring too, as you may know, are the "left-wing PC police/crowd." Before I continue, I should note Drumpf is not "anti-PC." Drumpf's just part of the "right-wing PC police/crowd," as he's shown many times before. Drumpf has sued or threatens to sue anyone who says something critical of him. He's threatened to "open the liable laws" if elected. This may seem like I'm attacking his personality. But this does show his extreme authoritarian leanings. http://finance.yahoo.com... http://gawker.com... http://lawnewz.com... Lets debate rival policies.
People are more Anti-Trump then they are Pro-Hillary

It seems that the overall consensus is that Hillary is better suited to be our next president for the sole reason that it is believed that Donald Trump is "bad". As for myself, I am a Donald Trump supporter based on his policies (not all of them), and when I asked who I am voting for I get called a racist, a bigot, condescending, crazy. When I challenge back as to why they are voting for Hillary or not at all, an attack more on his character then his policies. Those who are Anti-Trump seem more upset on things he has said instead of things he has done. I for one, do not think he is not the racist, elitist jerk that everyone makes him out to be.
People are more Anti-Trump then they are Pro-Hillary

It does further my point - because it'd cost another trillion dollars, just like the Iraq War did. Your solution wastes more money for no positive, realistic, change. The wall will lose us money in maintenance in just 7 years and still be ineffective (because of other methods) and to continue the drug war (legalizing cannabis isn't enough) will still make Central Americans (& Mexican's) want to flee here, and waste more money. Your idea to disincentivize illegals won't work, because it'll just make them not even bother with proper channels, so we'll have less of a clear picture of who's here. More will come, because IF you hurt Mexico, more will seek decent paying jobs, which are here, to feed their families. To disincentivize them end the drug war. To do so further, make E-verify compulsory. Grant amnesty to all 11 million illegals so they can pay their share of taxes to the Gov. This net-gains us money, is 100x more effective, and eases up pressure for border agencies.
People are more Anti-Trump then they are Pro-Hillary

It doesn't further your point at all, I provided ways to pay for all of it. And how could illegal immigrants want to to come to America more, when it is both harder to enter, harder to stay and the benefits they seek are gone? Increased penalties for overstayed visas, higher prices for work visas, discontinued use of the Matricula Consular, ending birthright citizenship, and terminate the J-1 Visa program which will give jobs back to the US, all discourage illegals from coming in and legal immigrants from overstaying illegally. And the efforts of Customs, Border, and local agents are laughable at the moment. There is little to no joint capability among the 3 agencies and they are simply spread too thin. Locking down the border allows them to isolate our side, while American military can increase drug interdiction (which the Mexican Government allows and works with us) which has great effect. Legalize marijuana to cut demand and match the efforts on both sides of the border.
People are more Anti-Trump then they are Pro-Hillary

Read what you cited just now. That doesn't change my points. The points provided in your source just further my argument, in terms of cost. By harming Mexico, you're harming America. As stated before, immigrants, illegal or not, come to America seeking decent paying jobs to feed their families back in Mexico. As stated in your source. By hurting them, they'll seek to come here even more. To say you'd just fund the drug war further doesn't help either. As cited, the drug war is a major cause of illegal immigration due to the power it has given drug cartels. So why not just end it, and make a positive change across the board? Ending it would even save moneyAlso, to say this would patch entry points doesn't really add^. As illegals enter the country via plane, tunnels - and drug cartels shoot their product over with cannons. They'll find ways. If Drumpf wants to lower illegal immigration, then he should look for intelligent solutions, rather than "wall = I can't see it, can't hurt me."
People are more Anti-Trump then they are Pro-Hillary

So just ignore the numbers I set forth? http://www.newfreethinkers.org... You're right it would harm Mexico. And again going back to the money sent back to Mexico, which is the "squeeze" Mr. Trump plans to apply to the Mexican government. Though remittances represent only 2% of the Mexico's GDP, much of the income is geared towards a developing Mexican infrastructure that income has doubled over the last decade. Not to mention increasing border crossing card fees and NAFTA work visas (both used by those on expired visas). It may not be feasible to cover the entire border in a physical wall, but adding to the already existing walls help decrease a number of entry points into the United States is. Trumps immigration reform calls for tripling the number of ICE officers and cooperation between them and local police to combat the gang and drug war spilling over our border. Funding would come from cutting tax credit payments to illegal immigrants ($4.2b)
People are more Anti-Trump then they are Pro-Hillary

I don't know if you've viewed the sources, but the wall would lose more money than gain. It won't put even a negligible dent in what illegal immigrants cost the Government, for the wall will over compensate for that, and is far from a sensible solution. If fact, this draconian idea would increase illegal immigration to the U.S. because this would harm Mexico, so more would feel compelled to come here for work. Remember many illegals here have not crossed the border illegally. Many crossed & flew in legally and now reside here on expired visas. If you want to net positive gain, then you must look toward another issue - the drug war. huffingtonpost.com/entry/want-to-reduce-illegal-immigration-end-the-drug-war_us_55e0b5f7e4b0c818f617d3d1 commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43664.000/hju43664_0.HTM pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/ beta.deseretnews.com/article/865651652/Why-Trumps-proposal-to-make-Mexico-pay-for-his-wall-wont-work.html?pg=all
The cake is a lie.

Unfortunately, Pro's last round was almost entirely irrelevant. Contrary to his statement, given the definition he provided, the resolution is still impossible. Let's look at Pro's interpretation of the resolution: 'I assert that the cake at the end of the game Portal is an assertion of something untrue by the speaker *Glados* in an attempt to deceive the player and ultimately kill them. ' But a cake cannot be a lie. A cake is a physical object, not a statement that could be true or false. A cake is not an assertion or a belief. A cake is, by Pro's definition 'A sweet baked food made of flour, liquid, eggs, and other ingredients, such as raising agents and flavorings'. Clearly, Pro's definitions do not agree with him. For comparison, look at a statement which could be true or false: 'I will give you cake after you complete these tasks' This statement could be a lie, or it could be the truth. From the game, it would be a lie from GLaDOS to motivate you. However, just the object 'cake' cannot be a lie, or the truth. It is just an object, not a statement about reality. A cake can neither be truth or lie, therefore the resolution is negated.
The cake is a lie.

I assert that the cake at the end of the game Portal is a lie. Cake definition:A sweet baked food made of flour, liquid, eggs, and other ingredients, such as raising agents and flavorings. I thank my opponent in advance for providing me with my first debate. Thank you for this debate. Lie definition: 1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive From http://www.merriam-webster.com... If we take this definition, you can see my statement would make sense. 'I assert that the cake at the end of the game Portal is an assertion of something untrue by the speaker *Glados* in an attempt to deceive the player and ultimately kill them.' This statement right here is 100 % grammatically correct. It is true that the speaker,Glados, attempts to deceive the player (heretofore stated as you) into believing that there is a cake so you will continue to go through all the arduous tasks that she continually insists upon you. As you progress through the game, you will see that she eventually confesses that the cake she told you about was a lie. Destroy her, and you eventually see a seemingly delicious 'cake' at the end of the game. However, taking the definition of cake, you will see that it is impossible to know if it is sweet, if it is made with all the necessary ingredients, and if it is baked. Therefore, we must assume that this is not a cake at all. If we take that have happened prior to this, you will see that it is probably another elaborate ruse to subdue you into doing more tasks, or to kill you. If we go back just a little, you will see that it appears the station is destroyed, and Glados is dead. However, after the end credits, you will see that companion cube is there. You had previously destroyed companion cube. This means that the entire ordeal could be a dream, and that there never was cake, or this cake could be layered with a sleeping agent so you can perform more tests for the institute. If companion cube is still alive, who's to say Glados isn't, and that she is plotting against you? I mean, you actually hear her singing. So, to summarize, there are three choices. 1)Glados is using this fake cake as a trap. 2) Hallucination/Dream 3)It isn't actually a cake, just a look-alike. Not a trap, but not a real cake. In conclusion, it is reasonable and logical to at least assume that there is no cake, and it was a lie from Glados. Thank you, again, for this debate. I urge the voters to vote in their best interest.
The Role of Propaganda in the Media.

"Through the creation of an uninformed electorate, democracy in the United States has been obstructed. This is evident in the selection of representatives who advocate policies that are contradictory to the best interest and/or opinion of the voter." The best interests of the voter do not and should not matter in a democracy. The opinions of the voters are far more important. For Pro to win, he must show that media propaganda is causing people to vote for candidates that they disapprove of (meaning the candidates' approval ratings are less than fifty percent). I will argue that propaganda actually helps democracy (meaning it improves candidates' approval ratings). A priori, it is expected that if voters have no knowledge of the current issues (ie they are uninformed), winning candidates would receive a 50% approval rating on average. If propaganda both for and against candidates did increase voters' knowledge of current issues, then it would be expected that the average approval ratings of representatives would increase to above 50%. According to (1), the average approval rating is above 50%. One possible explanation is that propaganda for candidates counteracted propaganda against these candidates, resulting in a more interested and more informed public that voted for candidates that they approved more of. Hypothetically, if propaganda were to banned, I believe that voters would become less informed, limiting democracy. Without ads, whose purpose it is to draw people's attention to important issues, how would the public hear important information about candidates or about current issues? "Note: All sources must be cited, sources must be objective and unbiased." Unless Pro can present more objective, less biased sources, my sources, even if they are not as "objective and unbiased" as possible, must be preferred over no sources. Sources: 1. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com...