BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Facebook: A Boon For the Society

I do not have any more opening contentions to give. Thus, I will take this round to refute Pro's contentions.R1) Social NetworkingPro argues that Facebook allows people to meet new people and keep contact with friends. However, as I showed in C1, depending on Facebook too much for such purposes is ultimately harmful to society, due to the resulting lack of real life social skills. It is a much better idea to rely more on face-to-face communication whenever possible. Even if an in-person interaction is not possible, it is still better to use forms of communication other than online social media- forms of communication that still require verbal involvement, such as telephone.R2) Video ConferencingPro argues that Facebook's video conference future makes it a boon to society. However, video-conferencing is not anything unique to Facebook. Skype is a popular software designed *solely* for the purposes of video calling. Google Plus is always rising in popularity. Facebook having a useful feature doesn't make it a "boon to society". In order to make such a claim, the feature would have to be something innovative and unique, and I demonstrated it not to be so in this case.R3) AdvertisingPro argues that Facebook giving us access to company advertisement is a boon to society. However, Pro himself notes that many people do not like Facebook's system of allowing companies to have access to their personal information, meaning that Pro has essentially refuted his own argument; something which people generally do not approve of cannot be considered a positive force in society. R4) Educational PurposesPro argues that because Facebook could potentially be used as an online resource for educational purposes, it is a boon to society. This suffers the same problem that his second contention does, except even more so; there are so many other online resources that are specifically designed for education, such as KhanAcademy and EdHelper. Anyways, many of the suggestions in the link provided by Pro are terrible; take the first one on the list: "Instead of trusting Wikipedia, ask the crowd on Facebook." Wikipedia is FAR more reliable as a source of information than Facebook! Wikipedia actually has established contributors, and its pages are frequently reviewed... Facebook's potential "educational" value is completely undermined by the fact that there are much better resources out there. CONCLUSIONI have refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and he has yet to address any of mine. Thus, the resolution is negated.Back to Pro!
Facebook: A Boon For the Society

I start from the the beginning then: * Face book: Face book is a social networking website that was originally designed for college students, but is now open to anyone 13 years of age or older. Face book users can create and customize their own profiles with photos, videos, and information about themselves. Friends can browse the profiles of other friends and write messages on their pages. * Society: A group of individuals living as members of a community. * Boon : A thing that is helpful or beneficial. Reasons for Classifying Face book as A Boon For The Society:1. ALLOWS PEOPLE TO LEARN, EXPLORE AND DISCOVER THE WORLD AROUND THEM. Face book allows people to discover the world present around them. In this rat-race, where people compete each other for money and status; making new friends and discovering new possibilities of relationship is almost impossible (I use the term almost). Face book provides a quick solution to this problem. It allows people to contact each other from any place- home, houses, schools and others private/public places.2. ALLOWS VIDEO CONFERENCING: THE NEXT GENERATION INTERVIEWS. Video Conferencing is a feature of Face book, which allows people from any corner of the world communicate with each other. This communication when is supplemented by voice and video, is termed as Video Conferencing. It is actually the next generation interview styles. Instead of travelling long distances and wanting in queues, people can have online interviews while enjoying a cup of coffee at their homes.3. GIVES A PLATFORM FOR MAKING MONEYAdvertising (in certain restricted ways) is good for us. We get to know about new products available in the market, and the manufacturers also get a chance to boost up their sales. A problem here, as stated by my opponent, is of privacy. Many ads track users and steal their personal information. But this can be easily solved by uses some free softwares like AdBlock, PrivDog, DNTMe etc. which disable tracking.4. EDUCATIONAL PURPOSESFace book also provides a vast range of possibilities for studying online. Please read : . http://www.teachthought.com... . I give the link because I do not have the time for writing so many points. I, therefore establish the facts that make Face book A Boon for the Society.
Facebook: A Boon For the Society

Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. The topic is a very good one. I will go ahead and use this round to give my opening arguments. Seeing that a "boon" is generally something positive, I must show why, on balance, Facebook has a *negative* influence on society in order to negate the resolution.C1) Social IneptitudeFacebook has been reported to promote social ineptitude in young people, due to face to face interaction being replaced with online interactions. Consistent usage of such technology can have a profound negative effect on a child's brain; one neurologist states that "'My fear is that these technologies are infantilising the brain into the state of small children who are attracted by buzzing noises and bright lights, who have a small attention span and who live for the moment," [1]. Facebook helps in creating this horrific state of being in children, showing that it is definitely NOT a "boon to society". C2) CyberbullyingFacebook is a potential medium for cyberbullying. Since parents often do not follow their children's online activities, bullies can easily get away with things they would not be able to get away with in real life on social media sites. According to victim accounts, cyberbullying "is having catastrophic effects on their self-esteem and social lives, as well as damaging their future prospects by crushing their optimism." [2]. According to the same source, 37% of children have experienced cyberbullying before. It is obviously not a good thing for society to have such a large portion of its young generation being psychologically scarred like that. Facebook provides a means for cyberbullying to happen, and is frequently used for it, too; another example of Facebook being a "bane" to society. C3) Lack of PrivacyFacebook has been known to change its privacy policy without notifying of its users, causing unfortunate mishaps to happen, such as messages and pictures that were supposed to remain private suddenly becoming public [2]. Such incidents can have severe, negative effects on a person's social life, harming both the individual and the people they know. As shown in the cited article, such occurrences are relatively frequent, meaning that Facebook is a negative societal force.CONCLUSIONI have shown three ways in which Facebook has a negative influence on society, collectively negating the resolution.I hand the debate back over to my opponent.SOURCES[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[2] http://www.mirror.co.uk...[3] http://www.usnews.com...Apologies if this round seemed a bit rushed... I wrote it in roughly 15 minutes...
Facebook: A Boon For the Society

Dear Readers, Today I stand for the topic "Facebook: A Boon For the Society". Before to jump to the main body, I would like to make some clarifications: * Facebook: Facebook is a social networking website that was originally designed for college students, but is now open to anyone 13 years of age or older. Facebook users can create and customize their own profiles with photos, videos, and information about themselves. Friends can browse the profiles of other friends and write messages on their pages. * Society: A group of individuals living as members of a community. Reasons for Classifying Facebook as A Boon For The Society: 1. ALLOWS PEOPLE TO LEARN, EXPLORE AND DISCOVER THE WORLD AROUND THEM. Facebook allows people to discover the world present around them. In this rat-race, where people compete each other for money and status; making new friends and discovering new possibilities of relationship is almost impossible (I used the term almost). Facebook provides a quick solution to this problem. It allows people to contact each other from any place- home, houses, schools and others private/public places. 2. ALLOWS VIDEO CONFERENCING: THE NEXT GENERATION INTERVIEWS. Video Conferencing is a feature of Facebook, which allows people from any corner of the world communicate with each other. This communication when is supplemented by voice and video, is termed as Video Conferencing. *** DUE TO SOME PROBLEMS REGARDING MY TIME MANAGEMENT; I END MY ARGUMENT HERE TODAY. BUT I PROMISE TO COME BACK WITH MORE POINTS AND ARGUMENTS IN THE NEXT ROUND. *** Sources: http://www.techterms.com...
Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People

Hah! Eight lines that must be an accomplishment Longest verse by you, stupid and incompetent You're hating on Iggy, but she's better than us both Cause she's rich and famous, you just pretend to be the pope I didn't use any sources, and I don't need to either Cause my raps everyones favorite like Leave it to Beaver Music courses? They don't teach how to flow But if they did you should be the first in the door Im not "serious" over a trolling debate Im serious cause you're losing every game you try to play Im serious because you took the wrong side of this debate Im serious because you are so full of hate And bad rhymes And shot lines Your arguments were bad enough but now you wanna rap? Check yourself son, like Humpty Dumpty, starting to crack Retake my life? What does that even MEAN? And yeah you don't make sense dude thats really plain to see Oh yeah, "here" and "here" , they don't rhyme Its the same freakin word you lazy, asinine Hatefull fool Go back and get yourself some school Tell em you need a diaper and that you've got a boo-boo Shut up, get out, and remember that you're a lame dude
Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People

Your rhyme is pitiful and your flow is lame Biggest word you used was 5 letters long that strange My brain Cant understand what you're trying to say Am I a cat, a rat, a bat, what the hell man, you insane? Doesn't take much to see you're just a furry on coke Tryin to look educated with your pic of the pope Cant just sit down, think, and argue your side of the case So you're cranking out stupid sentence structures and make Me waste my time On your kindergarten rhymes Go back to preschool kid, this debates all mine Didn't listen to the rules, didn't take the right side, went and made it a rap battle, now the voters decide Neg or Pro? Cool or lame? Intelligent or stooooopid Me or you
Ethnic Minorities Deserve Safe Spaces Without White People

This article is what sparked my interest in this topic: . http://www.ryersonian.ca... RULES: 1) This is a sensitive issue. As such I have allowed a 3 day response and cooldown period. Hate, racial slurs, and general disrespect will not be tolerated. 2) Do not post video, article, or anything as an argument other than your own response. 3) SOURCE please. Not for every statement, but no bogus statistics. Round Breakdown: Round 1) Acceptance. NO arguments. Round 2) Con then Pro opening statements. Pro may offer a rebuttal. Round 3) Rebuttals from Con and Pro, as well as a Construction (or re-addressing) of your side. Round 4) Closing statements
Moses did not write the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy)

Thank you for your informative opening argument. Due to the rules of the debate, this is just my opening argument.Fact 1: There are verses in the Pentateuch that have Moses' authorshipVerse 1: Exodus 17:14After the victory, the LORD instrucyted Moses, "Write this down on a scroll as a permament reminded, and read it aloud to Joshua: I will erase the memory of Amalek from under heaven."Verse 2: Exodus 24:4Then Moses carefully wrote down all the LORD's instructions. Early the next morning Moses got up and built an alter at the foot of the mountain. He also set up twelve pillars, one for each of the tribes of Israel. Verse 3: Deuteronomy 31:24-26 (Most damaging to your case) When Moses had finished writing this entire body of instructions in a book, he gave this command to the Levites, who carried the Ark of the LORD's Covenant: "Take this Book of Instruction and palce it beside the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD your God, so it may remain there as a great witness against the people of Israel. I think this verse is clear that he [Moses] wrote the book of instructions (i.e. the law) as G-d commanded him. Fact 2: Elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures, Moses is given credit Verse 1: Joshua 1:7-8 "...Obey all the laws Moses gave you."Verse 2: Joshua 8:31-34 "He followed the instructions that Moses the Lord's servant had written in the Book of the Law..."Verse 3: Joshua 22:5 "...obey all the commands and the laws that Moses gave to you."Verse 4: 2 Chronicles 34:14 "...Hilkiah the high priest...found the book of the Law of the Lord as it had been given through Moses." Fact 3: The Gospel's give record to Moses' authorship Matthew 19:7-8 "...why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?", they asked. Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted divorce...'" Matthew 22:24 "Moses said, 'If a man dies without children...'" Mark 7:10 "For instance, Moses gave you this law from God..." Mark 12:24 "...haven't you ever read about this in the writings of Moses, in the story of the burning bush..." Luke 24:44 "...I told you that everything written about me by Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must all come true." John 1:17 "For the law was given through Moses..." John 5:46 "But if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me because he wrote about me. And since you don't believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?" John 7:23 "...do it, so as not to break the law of Moses..." Fact 4: Elsewhere in the NT is authorship credited to Moses Acts 26:22 "...I teach nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen..." Romans 10:5 "For Moses wrote..." Conclusion Nowhere in the Bible does the entire Pentateuch say that he [Moses] wrote the ENTIRE Torah; however, the evidence is clear that he wrote at least part of the Torah and a good chunk of the law. That is the reason I am arguing from the perspective that he wrote only some of the Torah and not all of it. Thank you, and I egerly await your response.
This love poem is better than Shakespeares sonnet 147

con says "Dionysian/Apollonian Pro has dropped my entire history of the concepts of Dionysian and Apollonian. Like I stated (and cited) before, the two concepts stem from Nietzsche's _Birth of the Tragedy_." that history is irrelevant just as grammar punctuation etc You have chosen to ignore my analysis of both poems- and just give us history and English lessons you give no examples from sonnet 147 to show how why they are more loving than deans all you give is what someone teaching English would give to a class your position is that sonnet 147 is a better love poem than dean-so PROVE that assertion so stop giving English lessons and back up you con position with analysis of both poems with examples if you cant prove your position with examples and analysis then I must in the debate
This love poem is better than Shakespeares sonnet 147

hi con con says "In contrast, Shakespeare's sonnet is a paradigm of a Dionysus/Apollo dialectic. Shakespeare uses humor and unexpected language constructs to surprise the audience into a state of un-reflected passion. Instead of saying "I want to have sweet sweet sex," which is designates a certain kind of emotion but is hardly Dionysian, Shakespeare says "My love is a fever" just by saying "My love is a fever"does not convey any experience or emotion of that -just an intellectualization as con says "Apollonian construct" but dean poems does convey fever-is Dionysian ""Oh oh give me thy soul along the flesh of I give me thy soul to make my eyes to cry my love for thee oh come beloved " you can hear feel the passion in these lines where as all you get from Shakespeare is mere intellect mere words con says "The reader loses herself at the humerus image of Reason" exactly my point all Apollonian where deans line take the reader on an EMOTIONAL experience due to the passion of the lines con says ". By the end of Pro's poem, we do get a clear picture of the combatant's physiological arousal," my point deans poem takes you into the people minds makes you feel their arousal- Shakespeare is in the head you feel nothing emotional from Shakespeare only intellect all Apollonian con says " but honestly with less crass language " crass language has nothing to do with any thing in deans case this language conveys the passion the emotion Shakespeare's language conveys no emotion only words con says . We get no feel for the wrestlers' emotions (hopes, fears, embarrassment, familiarity), their internal states, their passions. Love, in this case, is nothing more than two people stimulating each other's privates." you are wrong how much passion and state of he mind is these lines from dean "I be fainting with the longing of thee for me I be fainting with my longing for thee oh come beloved I sigh into a swoon do I sigh upon the sweet lips of thee my sighs are as butterflies winging upon golden light my sighs are as the cooing of love doves in flight my sighs are as the many petaled blooms waving in the worlds scented meadows" we hear feel her longing for her lover we enter right into her mind but Shakespeare lines "MY THOUGHTS and my discourse as madmen's are, At random from the truth vainly expressed, For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, Who art as black as Hell, as dark as night." he mentions his thoughtss but gives us no experience of what he is thinking no passion no emotion he only tell us his thoughts a -are of a madmans he again this Shakespeare "my discourse as madmen's are," conveys nothing of his madness except just telling us but deans words convey her emotions we hear feel see her sighs "my sighs are as the cooing of love doves in flight my sighs are as the many petaled blooms waving in the worlds scented meadows" I could go on all I will say is my examples show why deans poem is better than Shakespeare's any one who read both poems would immediately see hear the passion emotion Shakespeare just words just dead language convey only intellect ideas- all Apollonian
This love poem is better than Shakespeares sonnet 147

This love poem is better than Shakespeare's sonnet 147 in conveying real passion emotion and love http://www.scribd.com... if you are not going to read the poem then there is no point debating this Sonnet 147 by William Shakespeare My love is as a fever, longing still For that which longer nurseth the disease, Feeding on that which doth preserve the ill, The uncertain sickly appetite to please. My reason, the physician to my love, Angry that his prescriptions are not kept, Hath left me, and I desperate now approve Desire is death, which physic did except. Past cure I am, now reason is past care, And frantic-mad with evermore unrest. My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are, At random from the truth vainly expressed, For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright, Who art as black as Hell, as dark as night. Shakespeares talks of his love being a fever yet we do not feel this fever his fever is just of the mind Deans lines convey clearly the pssion of love we feel we hear that passion Take these lines from Shakespeares "And frantic-mad with evermore unrest. My thoughts and my discourse as madmen's are" Again Shakespeare talks of frantic thoughts and discourse of a madman yet this is just words his lines do not convey any frantic or mad discourse "all just words and intellect Yet take Dean lines "Oh oh give me thy soul along the flesh of I give me thy soul to make my eyes to cry my love for thee oh come beloved and make my heart to thud and my veins to sing with thy lips make my ears ring with the love thee does to I" Clearly we hear the heart soul of longing of love Shakespeares lines are lifeless dead nothing of his heart comes through only his mind is talking he is not speaking from a heart of love but only from a mind that intellectualizes love
This love poem is better than Shakespeares sonnet 147

hi con Voters Even if you think sonnet 147 is a better love poem than deans in terms of this debate you must be objective and base your voting on objective criteria ie the proof given for ones position well in conclusion Con has only given assertions without ANY examples with analysis from dean or Shakespeare to back up cons position that sonnet 147 is abetter love poem than deans 1) con has given no examples with analysis from sonnet 147 2)con has given no examples with analysis from dean all con has done is give us a history lesson and English lesson con has not even told us why deans lack of punctuation makes it a bad love poem Con has only told as that it is bad English--I could say the lack of punctuation adds to the intensity of the emotions conveyed in the poem When people are angry they do not stop and punctuate their expression what we get is a long continuous expression The same effect is conveyed in deans poem by lack of punctuation all con has done is give assertions about deans poem con has not even told us why sonnet 147 is a better love poem WHERE I 1)I have given examples with analysis of deans poem to show that it is more of a love poem than Shakespeares -ie fits the definition better 2) I have given examples with analysis of sonnet 147 to back up my position Therefore I should win the debate
State mandated administration of childhood vaccinations is justified

I have refuted all of the con's points with superior evidence and logic, while upholding my own points. Just to sum up the main arguments: 1. Without a mandate, herd immunity will be threatened. A mandate is the only way to make sure that enough people will get vaccinated, and will ultimately remain healthy. Furthermore, it is not right to put someone else in danger if it can be helped. By depriving their children of vaccines, parents are not only putting their own children in danger, but also putting the children of others in danger. Referring back to my Contention 2, subpoint B, when people fail to vaccinate their children, kids with weak immune systems etc. can and will be hurt. 2. Parents don't always make the best choices for their children. Diseases that cannot be be protected through herd immunity, such as tetanus, creates a greater need for everybody to get vaccinated. A child should not be forced to endure diseases such as tetanus because of a bad decision of their parents. 3. Vaccines are expensive. If vaccines were mandated, those with less money would be able to get the vaccines. 4. All of my opponent's "religious beliefs" claims have been proven to be incorrect. First and foremost, biblical word isn't taken literally. All of the religions my opponent brought up allow vaccinations. 5. The constitution does not provide absolute rights. Furthermore, because my opponent cannot proven that any religions explicitly prohibit vaccines, this point falls in my favor. 6. Vaccines are safe. If a parent is concerned about certain ingredients, they can get an alternative brand of vaccines. 7. Vaccination is preferable to natural immune systems. (Refer to my Japanese example) 8. It is preferable to give children vaccines: So they're safe throughout their life. It's more effective when given to children. Because of these reasons, I can only urge a Pro vote.