BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children should be limited on how long they can watch television.

I disagree with my opponent in the fact that television should be restricted in some capacity to children. I think that children should be able to do what they want, to some extent. I assume that by "going outside" my opponent means doing things like playing sports, riding bikes/roller blades/skateboards, or other outdoor activities. If a child wants to play a sport, they play sports. If they want to ride bikes or draw with chalk, they do so. If they enjoy watching TV more than doing these things, they should be free to do so, as long as they are aware that what they are doing may be physically/mentally damaging to them. One may argue that they are not, and that parents hold the responsibility to protect them from these consequences, but they are only pulling their children away from what they enjoy most. One may also argue that children never play outside enough to rightfully decide which activity they enjoy most but in most cases, this is obviously false. I encourage voting con.
Children should be limited on how long they can watch television.

Television is causing more and more children to waste there childhood inside instead of going outside and experiencing proper childhood. Some children watch television for so long that it causes health and social problems. The health problems have been very clear for many years. It causes childhood obesity and visual problems. But the social problems are a bit harder to see. Children who don't go out with there friends gain serious social, they become unable to interact with other human beings and this can cause serious problems in later life. If television had a limit to it then children would not suffer these problems as they would have to go outside. There is a loophole however, they might not go outside they might still stay inside and do other things. This would mean that the parents would have to make the children go out. But if the children had a limit from all forms of screens they would at least not suffer physical problems and probably not the social problems either.
The Ethics of Star Trek: Autonomy and Society

PrefaceThis is my fourth installment in 12-part series on the "Ethics of Star Trek." I think Star Trek holds a wealth of moral and philosophical quandaries that are fertile ground for debate and controversy. While some may see these kinds of TV show-related debates as "fluff" topics, I think that the serious ethical implications that underpin the topics I have selected belie that idea.My hope for this debate and for this series is that I will be able to have some fun delving into my inner nerd and my inner trekkie, while still having some lively and informative discussions. In this debate, particularly, I hope to explore the concepts behind and ethics of cultural identity, self-defense, autonomy, and freedom through the example of the actions of the Mariposan Colonists. Full TopicThe attempted, forced cloning of Star Fleet officers by the Mariposan Colonists was wrong.ContextThis debate surrounds events that transpired in the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Up the Long Ladder." In this episode, the crew comes across a colony that was previously unknown to them--Mariposa. They soon deduce that the colony's whole population is composed of clones, specifically clones of just 5 people, who had been victims of a crash landing on the planet generations prior. However, continual cloning and re-cloning has caused the DNA in the clones to degenerate such that soon further cloning will be impossible. Once cloning is no longer viable, Mariposan society will end.In order to save their society, the Mariposan's forcibly clone Cmdr. Riker and Dr. Pulaski (this would acquire fresh DNA for them), but are eventually thwarted when the clones are destroyed before they can fully mature. Pulaski and Riker refuse to undergo voluntary cloning after that incident. Eventually, the crew devises a new solution, and introduces some refugees to Mariposa, who can then populate the planet. [1]Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. With undefined words, both debaters agreed to use standard meanings of the words that make sense in the context of the resolution and the debate8. The BOP is shared9. Pro must go first10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's Constructive CaseR2. Con's Constructive Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case and CrystallizesR5. Con rebuts Pro's Case and Crystallizes, Pro waivesThanks......to whomever accepts; I look forward to a trek-tastic debate![1] http://en.memory-alpha.org...(episode)
The Ethics of Star Trek: Autonomy and Society

Thanks to Faustian. We've agree to ignore the first round. We're starting in R2. The set-up will be as follows: R2. Faust's case R3. My case, Faust rebuts my case R4. I rebut Faust's case, Faust's defends his case R5. I defend my case, Faust waives On to my arguments... ------------------------------- I have very little time, so I will present two brief arguments. First: The whole purpose of any government is to protect its people and its society. "[L]et us recognize that the functions, commitments and obligations of governments are not the same as those of the individual...[Government"s] primary obligation is to the interests of the national society it represents, not to the moral impulses that individual elements of that society may experience. No more than the attorney vis-a-vis the client, nor the doctor vis-a-vis the patient, can government attempt to insert itself into the consciences of those whose interests it represents." [1] The Mariposan government faced a stark choice: violate the rights of two, or lose its entire culture. Clearly, the government's interest to its own society outweighed its other concerns. Second: We should default to utilitarianism. "A deontological moral system should include both a moral duty not to lie and one to keep others from harm, for example, but in the above situation how is a person to choose between those two moral duties? A popular response to this is to simply choose the 'lesser of two evils,' but that means relying on which of the two has the least evil consequences and, therefore, the moral choice is being made on a consequentialist rather than a deontological basis." [2] So, we should weigh the future and the health of an entire society and culture over the rights of two individuals.
The Ethics of Star Trek: Autonomy and Society

The resolution reads: "The attempted, forced cloning of Star Fleet officers by the Mariposan Colonists was wrong." I am Con, meaning that I am arguing that the cloning of the Mariposan Colonists was right. However, it appears that Pro has already made that argument for me, and has negated the resolution. I need only repeat Pro's words here: "he Mariposans did what they did to survive, to ensure the continuation of their colony, and there was no ill will, malice, or greed considered in their solution. Even the so called 'victims' in this were not victims: they didn't know they were harvested, nor was their ill effect of such. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. My addendum: or the desire of the one."
Ghandi and Satan are Long Lost Brothers

I will start by agreeing with the facts put forth so far. There are many certified quotes that both Ghandi and Satan said, as confirmed by the Holy Q'uran. However, the blood link between these two fine young men was never fully confirmed, as Ghandi was alive in 1993, when he fronted the band Nirvana, before DNA testing was invented. Your argument may be that the facial characteristics between the two may be uncanny. The Mahatma wore glasses, just as the Lord of Darkness does. Secondly, although Mohandas Ghandi had his surgically removed when he was 16, both were born with horns on their heads. My rebuttal is this: Lucifer and Ghandi were of different ethnicities. The Bible/Q'uran states that Satan is evil and Jesus is dandy. Jesus, being born in New York, a small village in South America, was indeed not white. This proves that Satan was white, as the letters in Jesus rearranged spell out "white" just as they do "Satan" and "gay marriage is cool." One may say that the King of Hell used his powers of light to change his ethnicity after being born South American. This has not yet been proven by the Olive Garden council, but if it is, we must debate once again. Furthermore, though the father of Satan and Ghandi is indeed the same, (Allah) the identity of their mother has been a matter of debate for over 500 seconds. Liberals will say it's Yaweh, the Judeo-Christian god, while conservatives like Barack Hussein Obama argue that the mother can only be gay, you racist. I have many other facts and theories to present, but I am more interested in rebuttals to this heated topic. Thank you for offering it, and I thank you in advance for responding once again. Sources used: www.understandingevil.com http://www.christianpost.com... http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.msnbc.com... http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...
Marijuana Legalization

1. Due to the fact that my opponent doesn't specify who it will be legalized for, it can only be assumed that it is completely legal. It is important to set a definite age limit on who can and cannot be caught in possession of/smoking/selling marijuana. Allowing children to smoke marijuana can cause permanent damage onto a child's psychological development and outweighs any revenue to the government brought on by its sale. This is the number 1 most important reason to vote con in todays round. Even if he proves that marijuana legalization is overall better for adults, he does not specify that it is only legalized for those over 18 or 21, so it is assumed that it will be legalized for all, and loses because of it. On other substances- 1. These are strictly limited to those that are only over 18/21- only legal for them. Full out legalization of marijuana would leave it open to kids, which is horrible and hurts psychological development. On tax revenue- 1. Impact on kids outweighs 2. This hurts the drug dealers, now every deal they make will cause them to pay taxes. Not only that the consumer will have to pay taxes. I believe that cheap, good weed is the best. With taxes applied, we will see a higher price of weed in every day life. No one wants that, and may stop smoking because of it. 3. The positive impact on the economy of more pot smokers outweighs. If you have every experienced the munchies or cottonmouth upon smoking you can testify to the fact that lots of snacks and water are purchased that would not have been purchased otherwise. These purchases contribute to a healthy economy. On criminals- 1. It is ignorant to believe that only the lower class are the ones that sell marijuana. Middle class and even upper class people are the biggest dealers, they are completely safe and don't pose a threat to any costumers. They only have the chill dealer personality. 2. How many people went out and committed a crime when smoking marijuana? Hardly any. Drug dealers are not criminals, there is absolutely no link from turning a drug dealer into a criminal. So the impact of giving criminals money means nothing On quality- 1. It is actually a fact that because marijuana has been grown indoors for so many years because it is illegal, the THC content has risen. Another reason the THC content has risen is because drug dealers take a lot of time and consideration when cross breading their plants to get the best results. A discovery channel documentary explains all of this, and how the THC content has risen substantially because of marijuanas illegality On civil liberties- 1. Kids shouldnt have it
Marijuana Legalization

I think marijuana should be legalized. 1. Other substances Alcohol impairs you more, yet is legal. Cigarettes offer all of the same health concerns, but offer no significant benefit (high) and most cigarette smokers smoke more than marijuana users on a daily basis. Also, marijuana has been medically proven to be non-habit-forming, unlike cigarettes and alcohol. 2. Tax revenue The government could tax and regulate the marijuana industry, generating state revenue at a time when it is needed. Also, the birth of a high demand industry would foster jobs and economic growth. 3. Criminals With the ever growing popularity of marijuana, middle-class people who are not drug or street savvy are having to deal with dangerous people and frequent the more suspect areas of town to procure their product. Legalization would stop this. Also, legalization takes away a large portion of criminal funds, without the cost of policing. By offering the legal sale of marijuana, the criminal organizations who deal it now are out that revenue. 4. Quality The medical purposes of marijuana (while they may be suspect) would be improved with improved quality. If people are able to grow it freely, it can be privatized professionally and developed at lower cost and higher quality yield. 5. Civil Liberties The political history of marijuana is suspect. Many believe it was outlawed under false pretenses (i'll go into detail if so requested). Also, in a free country, a citizen should be able to indulge/harm themselves in any way they see fit as long as they do not infringe upon or danger the rights of others. While other harder substances may offer this risk, the private consumption of marijuana doesn't. I'm looking forward to hearing from someone on this topic. Thanks in advance.
Funniest song

Hitchin' up the buggy, churnin' lots of butter Raised a barn on Monday, soon I'll raise another Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart? Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art I'm the pious guy the little Amlettes wanna be like On my knees day and night scorin' points for the afterlife So don't be vain and don't be whiny Or else, my brother, I might have to get medieval on your heinie
Chromebooks should not be allowed in school

Based on your argument, you should be be Pro but never mind. Anyway, I think that Chromebooks should be allowed in school because they make completing work a lot easier. Chrome books are connected to Gmail and Google Classroom which makes it easy to communicate with your teachers and turn in assignments. Google Classroom also is better for the environment because it doesn't require paper as assignments can be done using Google Docs or Word. And for kids who are sick or miss school, they can still complete their assignments from home and not be behind the rest of the class. You mention how Chromebooks can cause eye damage which leads to some students wearing glasses. I would argue this is not true. For one, to have so much damage from computer, you must use it for very long periods of time. Chrome books aren't usually used the entire class and in all classes every day. To get this much damage, a person would have to us the computer for a very long time which is usually done at home. If you ban chrome books, kids still have phones and electronics they use at home that causes the eye damage. Furthermore, people sometimes just need glasses because of the way their eyes are from birth. It is not always external forces. To blame people wearing glasses on eye damage from school computers is an exaggeration.
Why we should be friends

I get all my games from GameFly I like to play games but I really like games that are challenging and are not just shooting stuff or like Assassin's Creed style...old fashioned mixed with "Simulation Mode" bulls.hit and "gangster" games or bulls.hit car games like Forza 5. I like games that require critical thinking and anger me like "Crimes and Punishment" where I can "convict" anyone in the game because they are "f.ucked up" like the young innocent boy who needs to be "straightened out" or that arrogant rich man who needs someone to "break him" for example. I like turned Sherlock Holmes into a typical cop! Man can you believe it....or what? Also I hope I find another game that has a "reputation system" or a "game of mysteries"!
Why we should be friends

Thank you for the challenge that you have given me to be my friend. Hello my virtual name trully is Xxzefd I love to debate and reveal what I know to the virtual community. Sometimes I like to "trick" people into believing things they think I believe in using debates to anger them like I did with "creationtruth" when he "found out" that I was a "misotheist". Can you believe that this "dumbass" believed all my antitheistic rhetoric and propaganda. Hahaha people like this jerk should be "subconsciously" turned into an atheist to learn to question everything instead of being a robotic believer with there flawed "belief system". As this is one of my main goals other then wasting too much time playing video games on my XboxOne to f.uck ppl up!
Existence is Impossible

Other than continuing to make baseless assumptions which can be dismissed immediately, Pro really makes only two arguments, with the first being Occam's Razor. Unfortunately, this actually refutes Pro's position. As stated at the beginning, I do not have to prove that anything exists to win this debate. As such, my position contains zero assumptions, as I am no more assuming that the universe does not exist than I am assuming that it does. On the other hand, Pro is making the assumption that the universe doesn't exist. As such, it is Pro's argument that is clearly struck down by Occam's razor.The only other argument made is the second law of themodynamics. This makes little sense in the context of this debate, as we aren't arguing about whether or not the universe that is experienced exists, we're arguing about whether or not the existence of any thing is possible. Pro states that I am diverging from the topic, but it reality Pro is trying to wriggle away from the incredibly flawed resolution.Pro also interestingly claims to be non existant, which, from Pro's perspective, is impossible. I have zero way of determining if Pro is real or not and vice versa, but to each one of us, our own existence is self evident as I demonstrated in my first set of arguments.
Existence is Impossible

Firstly let me apologize when i stated "Nothing cannot come from something..." I meant to say something cannot come from nothing, I hope this can be forgiven, seeing that I don't even exist. Secondly, Con is obviously insane and disillusion, he/she/it whatever does not exist. Con has diverged from the argument, saying that "The use of the phrase "at some point" implies that linear time extends indefinitely backwards, but this is unprov[en], and as such, there is no reason why the very first "something" couldn't have begun existing at the start of time." Let us observe a definition: Time: the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole. Regardless, of Cons ignorant claims of what time is and is not, it doesn't matter because time does not exist, nothing does. Con claims that my statement "Anything you perceive is the result of a psychosis." negates itself because it "implies that a "you" exists." This is not true because I am obviously insane, anything I say that implies existence is a result of my psychosis. Con wants proof of the impossibility of existence, the first law of thermodynamics states that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. Which really doesn't mean anything considering the laws of thermodynamics do not really exist, because neither matter nor energy exists. Existence is impossible, you cannot have an effect without a cause. Unless Con can tell me the cause of the effect that is existence, than I would have to say that there is no such thing as existence. After all, what is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I'll see the Hitchens' Razor and raise an Occam's razor: When faced with competing hypotheses, select the one that makes the fewest assumptions. Do we assume that something appeared out of nowhere, something that started with time, do we assume a magic bearded man created everything, do we assume something beyond our known laws of thermodynamics made a magic poof and set everything in motion? No we do not because we do not exist. the universe does not exist. nothing exists.
Existence is Impossible

In this debate, Pro is making the positive claim that "existence" is an impossibility, and by extension, that there is no existence. In order to win, I do not have to prove that anything exists; instead, all I must do is prove that it is NOT impossible.Lets start with definitions:Exist: To have objective reality or being. Impossible: Not able to occur, exist, or be done. In effect, Pro must prove that objective reality is not something that occurs. I must prove that it can occur, regardless of whether or not it does. As Pro carries the burden of proof according to the resolution (and it was never stated that the BoP would be shared) I will go immediately into rebutting the arguments that Pro makes. The bolded statement is Pro's argument, while the response underneath is my rebuttal."Anything you perceive is the result of a psychosis."As a positive statement, this must be supported with evidence. The fact that there is no evidence to the contrary does not sufficiently prove this statement, regardless of whether or not it is true. Additionally, the phrasing implies that a "you" exists, effectively disproving the resolution from the get-go. As per the "Cogito ergo sum" argument, the ability to question one's own existence is proof enough of existence, as there must be a "someone" to be doing the questioning. Even if an intelligence fully accepted solipsism and its own complete disconnectedness from any external universe, the very fact that it is able to think would confirm its existence."If you can read this you must be crazy, because nothing exists."Once again, this is an unsubstantiated claim. Lack of evidence to the contrary does not constitute positive evidence. "At some point something had to come from nothing, something had to start this intricate series of cause and effect known as existence. Nothing cannot come from something..."Yet another unsubstantiated claim. The use of the phrase "at some point" implies that linear time extends indefinitely backwards, but this is unprovable, and as such, there is no reason why the very first "something" couldn't have begun existing at the start of time. Additionally, even if time does extend indefinitely, there is no positive evidence to support the claim that "nothing cannot come from something" (i.e. "No things can NOT come from something," or "A thing cannot come from NO things"). Pro has given absolutely zero reasons for why this is true. As per Hitchens' Razor, what is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Existence is Impossible

I am arguing that existence is impossible. Anything you perceive is the result of a psychosis. If you can read this you must be crazy, because nothing exists. At some point something had to come from nothing, something had to start this intricate series of cause and effect known as existence. Nothing cannot come from something (even if you say a god of some kind created existence it still does not account for the god coming into being), Therefore, existence is impossible, and anyone that perceives anything at all is crazy.