BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should all teenagers have mobile phone

If the talk is about tracking a teenager. Of course! Complement us teens with more brains, i don't think any teen who is a rule breaker would even let themselves get caught. And again as i said before, it influences teens into the wrong path of life and makes it miserable in the future. If he or she is kept in control at a young age then he will grow up as a good person. Study proves that giving teens phones at a young age raises the probability of them having a problematic future as drunkards.
Headphones are better than speakers

Headphones have several drawbacks that speakers do not. 1) They are able to be louder. You can't have a party and expect the music to come from headphones. 2) Generally, speakers have crisper sound. Speakers are more expensive, and the price tag isn't just for show. The quality increases with the price. 3) You can't listen to music with friends on headphones. I have a brother who I love to listen to music and sing along with. We have tried using headphones (the Ipod ones that split apart so you can share 1 ear bud with each person.) However, by doing that, the clarity of the song was greatly compromised. So whenever I'm listening to music with someone, I always listen to it through my speaker system. I will not, however, say that speakers are universally better then headphones. It's like comparing oranges to apples. Headphones are used mainly for private and on the go listening. Speakers are used for more social and party listening. So when given the option of which of the two I would prefer as a general rule, I will go with speakers.
what is the best way FOR A MALE TO DIE

Accepted! First we need to establish what is meant by "best". Merriam webster defines best as: "1 : excelling all others 2 : most productive of good : offering or producing the greatest advantage, utility, or satisfaction 3 : most, largest " I suggest the second definition since my opponent has already used it. And I hope my opponent agrees that further use of the Merriam Eebster is the best way to deal with any other definitions. So here we go; Advantage: dying having lived longer then any person ever. Utility: Dying so that others can live. Satisfaction: Dying as Hugh Hefner. I now await my opponent`s rebuttal.
Belief Is Dangerous And Should Be Avoided

My opponent did not set-up any round structure so I will make my argument in the next round. I will not rebuttal my opponents remarks this round but instead use this round for acceptance. I think we should start by showing just what it is we are debating. My opponent makes the claim that 'beliefs are dangerous and should be avoided. ' Since Pro is the Instigator, they must provide the BOP in this debate. I will go about showing that peoples beliefs are important for their judgement and in making determinations in their lives, while also rebutting Pro. Let's define the language used by my opponent and see what we need to look for in determining if Pro is right or wrong. Definitions: A 'BELIEF' is- : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Dangerous- 1 : exposing to or involving danger; 2 : able or likely to inflict injury or harm. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Avoided- 3 a : to keep away from : shun; b : to prevent the occurrence or effectiveness of; c : to refrain from. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... I believe these definitions maintain the spirit of the debate and the intentions by my opponent. I reserve myself rights to present my on argument while also rebutting my opponent next round. My opponent should put forth his full argument next round.
Belief Is Dangerous And Should Be Avoided

Humans have held many absurd and, at times, hazardous beliefs. Examples can be found in our various traditions, myths, cultural biases, superstitions, regulations, legends, miracle stories, advertisements, etc. Further, if we look closely, the ruinous controversies, conspiracies and conflicts all around us link back like branches to our core beliefs. If we want to kill a tree, we don't just go out and start tugging the leaves off or gnawing on a few branches. Instead, we take a chainsaw or an axe to the trunk. Similarly, major global issues (poverty, injustice, war, pollution, etc.) and their destructive results will persist as long as we're unwilling to deal with the beliefs driving them. We have to attack the root of the problem... within ourselves.
The show "Seinfeld" is pretty good

Despite the silliness of the topic, I urge the judges to not vote for the side that you personally agree with, but to vote for the side with the most convincing arguments. I have confirmed that TV Guide did indeed name Seinfeld the "greatest show of all time". . http://www.cbsnews.com... But what gives the people at TV guide the authority to decide what the greatest show of all time is? The best show rankings were "chosen and ranked by TV Guide editors", not professional movie critics. This does not give their decision very much weight. The other awards have more weight, but there are plenty of awards out there. In the words of Yoda, "Award does not make one great. " Contention 1: Seinfeld sets a bad example. South Park is not a good influence on children. But Seinfeld is worse for these reasons. a) South Park is filled with profane language and violent images, so children know not to watch it and parents know not to let their children watch it. b) Cartman is one of the most despicable characters on television; however, no one really likes him and he never gets what he wants. So South Park portrays that it is bad to be like Cartman. Seinfeld does not have these same advantages. a) There is not much vulgarity, so it is very easy to watch. This can draw young children into it, and parents won't care unless they really understand what the show's about. b) Every main character is morally despicable, but receives no comeuppance (with the possible exception of George, but the comeuppance there is really because no one likes him; this teaches that you only receive moral comeuppance when no one likes you). Contention 2: Seinfeld lacks talent. While the premises of Seinfeld are somewhat original, the execution is lacking. Elaine's character was very superficial and easy to write, while not particularly entertaining. George repeated essentially the same joke in virtually every episode: he was getting annoyed by something petty. This shows a lack of creativity in the show's production. Jerry is the only one who shows some variation from episode to episode. My opponent did not provide any direct evidence, and instead only cited awards that Seinfeld had won.
The show "Seinfeld" is pretty good

Jerry Seinfeld is a pretty funny guy and deserves to be recognized as a comical character. First off, he helped produce an extremely successful sitcom that lasted 9 seasons on the air and is still watched by thousands of viewers everyday. www.supermegaultra.net According to TV Guide, his work was "The #1 show of all time. (The back of season 3 Seinfeld case) Seinfeld has received awards and nominations in various categories throughout the mid-90s. It was awarded the Emmy for "Outstanding Comedy series" in 1993, Golden Globe Award for "Best TV-Series (Comedy)" in 1994 and Screen Actors Guild Award for "Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series" in 1995, 1997 and 1998. I would like to thank my opponent for a majestic debate. "People do things. Its a fact."- Master Shake
Religion and science agree

Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. Interesting topic. As the terms are not yet defined here they are:Science - knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws as obtained and tested through scientific method.Religion - the belief and worship of a God or Gods.Let me start with rebuttals:At first, Pro suggested most of the problems of religion are rooted in short-sightedness. But this is not relevant to the topic.Next, Pro mentions if there was a God, we should expect His insights to be not readily visible to our mundane minds. Well, here's the thing. "If" there was a God. Science doesn't work that way. Science doesn't form conclusions on "ifs". The case presented here is a double conjecture - Is there a God? If yes, then would His insights be not readily visible to our minds? If yes, then Pro's proposal would deserve a consideration by the scientific community. But if this, a hypothesis within a hypothesis, is Pro's provided argument, he should brush up on what is the standard of evidence science requires. Pro continues: "I have long been under the impression that if something is understood prima facie, then that thing is either incorrect, or incomplete. Those who hold God to an impossible standard will find that what they have wanted all along is an inconceivable idea." Pardon my lack of comprehension skills, but what do you mean? From my unsure understanding of it, are you saying those who want to observe evidence for God (hold God to an impossible standard) would end up empty handed? (inconceivable idea) If so, well, that's just evading the need to provide evidence. If not, please elaborate.Pro ends with suggesting as we have limitations on our knowledge we shouldn't only rely on science to explain to explain the natural world. I disagree. Let's raise a question, say, the origin of species diversity. There are countless creation myths from various cultures and religions, but why is science the one globally accepted and taught in schools? Because it is the evidence that science has and needs that makes it the one most credible. And just because you have limitaitons of knowledge doesn't mean you should be open to anything other than evidence for your first step in discerning the truth. Now, the reason religion is incompatible with science. Religion starts with a conclusion - the holy text, then searches for evidence to support it. Science starts with the evidence and then comes up with the conclusion. That is why there is so large a difference between the amount of evidence provided by the two. Religion is not willing to change its views, science changes to new evidence and observations, and admits its wrong sometimes. Galileo was convicted of heresy for suggesting a heliocentric model. Science might as well be the blasphemy of religion. That is only the start of the mountains of difference between the two.
Religion and science agree

Many of the so-called problems of religion are rooted in short-sightedness. What does harm today, may heal tomorrow. Our saving grace at present may prove to be our fatal poison in the future. Many are critical of God because He seems cruel, unfair, and unkind. But how can we be sure such actions are maligned? Does not the toddler revile against his parent when forced to spit out a contaminated object? Should a being exists who is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, would we not expect His perspective to contain insights not readily visible to our temporal, earth-bound minds? I have long been under the impression that if something is understood prima facie, then that thing is either incorrect, or incomplete. Those who hold God to an impossible standard will find that what they have wanted all along is an inconceivable idea. With scientists placing estimates at around 5%--less than 1/20th--of our matter and energy is even available to us to explore. Within that 5%, we find our samples are grossly under-represented. Over 15,000 new species are identified annually. With such limitations on our knowledge, why should we expect a simple explanation for worldly and social phenomena? It would seem much more reasonable to expect incongruence to our thoughts and observations, rather than the opposite.
should child labor be allowed

I think it's safe to say that my arguments stand. My opponent agrees with me that voluntary child labor should be allowed. But the resolution is: "Should child labor be allowed". If a child (person under 18) wants to work, that's child labor. Essentially, my opponent has conceded. Child labor has been painted at the forefront of what Laissez Faire Capitalism is supposed to look life. But it's a fallacy, and one that is absurd and falls flat on its face. Basic economics shows this, if more money is put in the hands of people, they will spend it, creating consumption and demand, and investment will be stimulated as well, which will increase wages and improve economic growth, and ultimately helping people become better off with higher living standards. "[I am] . .. against sweat shop child labor to bring home money in third world countries and also including china in factories"My opponent says that he is against families basically making their kids work in a factory to bring home more take home pay for the family. First, my opponent has basically conceded my arguments. Many parents are compassionate and care deeply about their children. If they make their kids work in a factory, it's because they see it as the best option on the table, more valuable than working on the fields at home. Many children and families would of starved without the availability of child labor. Child labor was gradually eliminated itself by the evolutionary force of Capitalism which provides us humans with higher living standards and progress. If you ban child labor, you will cause many families, who WANT these jobs so that they can get enough money to eat, you will cause them to starve. This is horribly immoral. Who gives the gov't the right to say that you can't do something if you NEED to do it to live? Government should only protect people's rights to life, liberty, and property. Should gov't dicatate that if you are under 18 and need to/ want to work, you cannot? That is outside of government's power. My arguments are left unrefuted, and thus I have affirmed the resolution.
should child labor be allowed

assuming that by voluntary you are refering.. Adjective: Done, given, or acting of one's own free will: "voluntary contributions". Noun: An organ solo played before, during, or after a church service. Synonyms: adjective. volunteer - spontaneous - wilful - willing - deliberate noun. volunteer .i am all for voluntary child labor as a matter of fact i have 212 volunteer hours and i am already a senior in high school. so again i shall say i am for voluntary child labor but against sweat shop child labor to bring home money in third world countries and also including china in factories
should child labor be allowed

As R1 is traditionally for introductions, I will assume that your R1 is for your intro and R2 is for your main arguments. Rebuttals I. Freedom to Choose"first off child labor I believe is simply just all around immoral and means that we as adults are incompetent or just plain lazy to do the work ourselves." First, this is a generalization. Child labor was almost eliminated before it was outright banned by the federal government. How so? Economic growth increased the size of the economic pie, which made all the slices larger too. This means faster growth brought higher wages, and ended the need for child labor. I am talking about voluntary child labor. If there is a child that wants to work, why should we deny them the opportunity? After all, they are free to quit if they wish (unless bounded by contract), but ultimately they are the one who decides whether they should get a job or not. And banning this opportunity just violates the liberties of many children, and families that rely on their children to work so that their family gets enough to eat. And by working early, many children can accumulate on the job skills which will lead to increased pay in the future. In fact, many children in the early 1700s didn't work, and when they were able to work, "their only refuge was the factory, which saved them from death by starvation". By 1830, the life expectancy of children had greatly increased, due to the most largest growth in living standards in history, a result of Capitalism. This gradually eliminated child labor, their parents had enough money that the kids didn't need to help.II. Working Conditions Second, Con also contends that " I believe that the working conditions are terrible". This must be looked at closely though. Yes working conditions may be poor, but first remember the economic growth resulting from child labor eliminates child labor naturally, secondly if the working conditions are bad many people will simply not take that job. The market naturally needs to pay people who do jobs with poor working conditions higher wages. The market pays these people higher, and empirical evidence shows that these market incentives dwarf the regulations such as workers comp that are meant to protect workers. Thus, we can assume that safety in the workplace today is at about the same level as it would be if gov't was't involved. [2] If children get jobs in factories, it is because the parents find that this job would be better than any other available alternative. So simply, banning child labor harms families. It is simple psychological and economic thought. Conclusion Child labor is an unfortunate but necessary human condition. Banning it will just cause many children to starve and families to suffer. Legalizing this practice will allow economic growth which will naturally child labor in the traditional sense. Market signals provide higher wages to those with poor working conditions. Children can get on the job skills which will give them higher wages. Legalizing child labor will ultimately help people. [1] http://eleutherian.blogspot.com... [2] http://econlog.econlib.org...
should child labor be allowed

so is most of the US Federal Gov't hence why they made child labor laws. these child labor laws states that Teens hired for nonagricultural employment (which is just about everything other than farm work) must be at least fourteen. Other child labor law restrictions, regulating the type of positions young workers can hold and the type of work they can do are also in effect. 18 Years of Age Once a youth reaches 18 years of age, he or she is no longer subject to the federal youth employment and child labor law provisions. 16 and 17 Years of Age Sixteen- and 17-year-olds may be employed for unlimited hours in any occupation other than those declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor. Examples of equipment declared hazardous in food service establishments include power-driven meat processing machines (meat slicers, saws, patty forming machines, grinders, or choppers), commercial mixers and certain power-driven bakery machines. 14 and 15 Years of Age During the school year, hours are limited to 3 hours a day and 18 hours a week. On days when there's no school and in the summer, working hours increase to 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. There are limits on when children can work, too - no later than 7 p. m. during the school year and no later than 9 p. m. between June 1 and Labor Day. Fourteen- and 15- year-olds may be employed in restaurants and quick-service establishments outside school hours in a variety of jobs for limited periods of time and under specified conditions. Jobs Exempt from Child Labor Law Regulations In general, children of any age are permitted to work for businesses entirely owned by their parents, except those under 16 may not be employed in mining or manufacturing and no one under 18 may be employed in any occupation the Secretary of Labor has declared to be hazardous. Minors employed in the delivery of newspapers to consumers are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) child labor provisions, as well as the wage and hours provisions. Children employed as actors or performers in motion pictures or theatrical productions, or in radio or television productions are exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) coverage. Therefore, FLSA rules regarding total allowable number of work hours in one day and allowable times of day to work do not apply. There are other exemptions, including making evergreen wreaths at home, so, check the DOL Exemptions from Child Labor Law Rules for the full list. Child Labor Regulation Changes Youth Minimum Wage The law allows employers to pay employees under 20 years of age a lower wage for a limited period (90 calendar days, not work days) after they are first employed. Any wage rate above the $4.25 minimum wage for youth an hour may be paid to eligible workers during this 90-day period. . http://jobsearch.about.com...
Best Utopia Contest

Last round. While the exchange was kind of fun. .. I've come away feeling a little dumber than before I registered at this site. Good people of DDO, I've offered up a couple version of Utopia for you to choose from. Sure, one looks like Hell, but so what, you're going to end up there anyway. My opponent has left you with a video game. Complete with images and commentary that would scar the mind forever! Hope this exercise in stupidity doesn't get me ran off the site.
Best Utopia Contest

No you idiot!! That was New Mexico.This is DETROIT. Basically, my opponents utopia is Hell. (By the way, would you sell that boat to me?) Now tell me audience, what utopia would you choose given these two? Definitely Detroit(or Hell).But that is only because, you've forgotten. INSANE-VILL has everything!LiberalsCommunistsDemocrats Repubs.The whole shindig.Oh ya, and we have burning pits of hell as well. I have one thing that I bet you don't have! A fat azz!! VIDEO http://www.youtube.com...Ok, lets re look over this. My goal, overall, is to show my utopia is better than my opponents........My opponents utopia is Detroit..........That is neither imaginative, nor cool bro. I live in Detroit, and I take offense. lol Jk.But no seriously broseph. I will fvcking fvck b!tch azz sh!t up if need be. I will fvcking punch a baby!
Best Utopia Contest

I'll tell you what utopia really is like? It is a place in the here and now. Thats right! You can actually live there if you want. It is the result from an idea, by people you'll most likely vote for over and over and over again. In fact, those same people have been ruling their Utopia for the last forty years. I'll give you a little taste of what to expect when you move there. (Thats ma boat!) Its a Liberal Utopia, but I think you'll settle in nicely!
Best Utopia Contest

Let's review my opponent's latest argument. 1."Insane-Vill? (Or Utopia) Getting shot in the face by a Zombie." Wow, can"t wait to get shot in the face! 2."ABOUT TO BE EATEN BY AN EXPLODING ALIEN DINOSUAR!" What??!! Too nonsensical to count as funny. 3."Holy sh!t!! Why would you NOT move to Insane-Vill. We literally have everything!" Right, and when you die, Your spot is saved and you simply respawn. 4."Dog's-got 'emDog poop-got that" 5."Dead Dong's-keep em frozen for ya" 6."Opp's I mean dog's, but we do have frozen dongs as well." 7."Bags-why not?" 8."earphones-Hells ya!" 9."Paper-You bet 'cha!" 10."Chips-Lots of 'em!" 11."Book-Their gay, but yes" 12."Dildoes-sure thing" Had enough? At best, I would categorize the above incoherent rant as a place somewhere between a severely bastardized version of Dystopia and Fu*king Hell. My opponent stated in the opening round that "This debate is to be judged completely on who's arguments were the most entertaining" LOL, entertaining to whom?... Yourself? Sorry, but that doesn't count. You've did most of my work here by practically disqualifying yourself from the debate. I digress... My Utopia is calm, peaceful, and without a worry in the world. Now if I can only get rid of that gawd awful tuna smell!