BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Technology makes us powerless

The topic on hand is how technology has apparently made us powerless. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... defines powerless as ‘devoid of strength or resources' . // Technology makes and will makes us much more depending on it if the developments stays the same. There so many developments in the Technological world that we can't let go without bringing the ethical debate to life. // This I agree with. Yes, the technology has made us dependent on it. But that doesn't make us powerless. On the contrary, the very fact that we are using it more in our daily lives points out how helpful we find these devices. I will elaborate on this afterwards. Also, why should we ‘let go' of these developments. The very reason the developments have taken place is because we need them, and the reason we have adopted them in our lives is because we find them helpful. // Take the example of Internet. This source was brought to life to make communication easier, but according to research, The World Economies would turn back with 20 percent in 355 days if there can't be an Internet Connection 1* Havard University. // I am sorry but I could not find anything about the said research on the internet. Could you please provide a link to the said study? // Take the Mobile phone. According to the University of Amsterdam, 4 on 5 Dutch guys believes that life would mean nothing without a telephone. // So that would mean that the power of technology is quite large, would it not, if it is the *lack* of technology make us feel powerless? The purpose of each new discovery is the same. // These developments are the basic reason form me to conclude that people are powerless and technology is making us more dependent on it, instead of the reverse. // I would like you to prove how so. Being dependent on a thing does not make us powerless. Going by the definition of powerless, it helps us on both counts, it is a handy source of all resources, and helps us to organize our lives more systematically, and is empowers us to deal with multiple things at a time, thereby securing high benefits.
Technology makes us powerless

There have been a lot of innovation in the human existence. Since the Stone age period to the Middle Age, The human being has been obligated to find new surviving way in making life much easier and comfortable, But there are serious problems in the the last years. Technology makes and will makes us much more depending on it if the developments stays the same. There so many developments in the Technological world that we can't let go without bringing the ethical debate to life. Take the example of Internet. This source was brought to life to make communication easier, but according to research, The World Economies would turn back with 20 percent in 355 days if there can't be an Internet Connection 1* Havard University. Take the Mobile phone. According to the University of Amsterdam, 4 on 5 Dutch guys believes that life would mean nothing without a telephone. These developments are the basic reason form me to conclude that people are powerless and technology is making us more dependent on it, instead of the reverse. And I'm curious about what my opponent is going to say about this tragic development in the human being existence.
Should Facilitated Research be used to Prevent Teen Suicide/Depression

NO- By making the issue of teen suicide evident to the public, it allows teens to be pressured to "get better" by their peers and family. When the issue is expressed to the World then teens feel trapped and surrounded, being watched by everyone thinking they are going to kill themselves and bystanders think they can help by watching. While this may not be the case for most issues it is on teen suicide. What do you think? Yes or No?
Tiger Woods's name should be changed to "Cheetah Woods"

Thank you posting this debate, hopec5, I hope it will be as controversial as the golfer himself. I liked the play on words, by the way, "Cheetah Woods" - that's both clever and funny. But doesn't my opponent think that we should cut poor Mr. Woods some slack? I mean, he's on the verge of losing half his considerable fortune in a divorce settlement and his wife and kids have already left him. And what has he done to deserve this? Just what most married men do when they are away from home, that's all. The only reason he didn't get away with his marital indiscretions is that he is extremely rich and famous and he was foolish enough to play around with the type of woman who wouldn't hesitate to kiss and tell if the money was right. Furthermore, despite rumours to the contrary he didn't have an affair with Jessica Simpson (1), even though she is extremely beautiful (2). (1) http://showbiz.sky.com... (2) http://www.iwatchstuff.com... At the end of the day, the poor man deserves our sympathy rather than our ridicule and scorn. Thank you.
Cats always land on their feet

Pro has failed to use logic in the form of academic argument, by not posting.Because my opponent hasn't replied, it's a automatic forfeit of the rules. Due to lack of information to go on, ill simply fill in time talking about how my dog encouraged me to buy a cat and continually drop it from great heights. My dog volunteered to record the data, and even buy a new cat if the first died.So I conclude, Pro has failed to post a creditable argument within the rules.
Cats always land on their feet

Pro has failed to use logic in the form of academic argument.It's clear for anyone who understands english that "fu*k" isn't a reasonable reply. However if he stubbed his toe, or reversed over his cat and said "fu*k" it would be reasonable. Since this debate has rules and parameters, his reply must fit within the code, and be judged accordingly. In conclusion, I see no logical reply from Pro therefore shall not offer any new evidence for my position.
Cats always land on their feet

Although cats have astounding reflexes and agility, this doesn't assert cats always land on their feet. Without evidence to support claims, regardless how logical they appear, can never be absolute unless clear evidence is proven. Example, if we claim no Tyrannosaur-Rex exist, we're asserting the ability to collect data from the entire world at the same time. Otherwise it maybe argued the Tyrannosaur-Rex moved while you were at location X. Therefore, to make such a universal absolute claim about cats, your asserting the logical perception of your pet cat is universal without adequate evidence.
Cats always land on their feet

Con's argument is invalid for two reasons. Firstly, it broke the rule of having to use the stucture of academic argument because it lacked clarity. Secondly, his argument sought to disprove Pro's with the factor of evidence, which was not described by the rules. Con's argument is invalid because it broke the rule of having to use the structure of academic argument through a lack of clarity. Academic argument must be above all clear, and must contain a thesis, a body-paragraph, and a conclusion. Although his argument has the last three of such elements, the second sentence of his introductions elaborates his thesis, which belongs in the body, and his body-paragraph is a lone example of his thesis without a restatement of his it. On top of this, his grammar is bad. His argument fails in clarity, so it cannot be called academic, and according to the rules of this debate becomes therefore invalid. Con's argument is invalid because it sought to disprove mine by invloving evidence, which was not a factor included in the rules. For example, Albert said that claims without evidence can never be proven. But the opening argument clearly stated that debators must use logic and academic argument, and that 'This is the only rule'. Con failed to debate within the rules of this debate. His argument is therefore invalid. Con's argument lacked clarity, which disqualified its academic form, and it tried to use the factor of evidence as a reason against Pro's argument, which was against the rules. Therefore Con's argument is invalid.
Cats always land on their feet

Although cats have astounding reflexes and agility, this doesn't assert cats always land on their feet. Without evidence to support claims, regardless how logical they appear, can never be absolute unless clear evidence is proven. Example, if we claim no Tyrannosaur-Rex exist, we're asserting the ability to collect data from the entire world at the same time. Otherwise it maybe argued the Tyrannosaur-Rex moved while you were at location X.Therefore, to make such a universal absolute claim, your asserting this ability.
Cats always land on their feet

I will argue that cats always land on their feet. Albert will argue that cats do not always land on their feet. Both For and Against must use logic in the form of academic argument. This is the only rule. I will begin. Cats do always land on their feet because my pet cat has always landed on its feet. My pet cat has always landed on its feet. I have had my pet cat for five years and I have never seen it not land on its feet. I have seen it jump off the couch, the table, and have even thrown it off my roof, but in all such cases it has always landed on its feet. Therefore cats do always land on their feet.
Homophobic people for whatever reason I challenge you to a debate

Well my good sir, the homosexual community would know that most of the population is heterosexual and most likely will not flirt with them thats why there are gay bars and hang out spots for the homosexual community. You don't just go up to a female slap her buttox and "damn girl I want to do you so hard" if you do you are insane and are deserving of a punch in the face. The fact is people deal with all types Of awkwardness through out there lifetime without homosexuals in the picture they Deal with it when the opposite sex ask them out and they turn it down that's still awkward. You can't run away from awkwardness with or without the homosexual community. Awkwardness is a part of life.
Homophobic people for whatever reason I challenge you to a debate

Now that being homosexual is not accepted by society, homosexuals are not approaching same sex people in a way heterosexuals approaching opposite sex people. They are restrained by the high possibility of severe reactions. If being homosexual was accepted by society, we(heterosexuals) would have to deal with awkward and nauseous situations, such as same sex people flirting with us and touching us. You should now provide counter-arguments for my point, and provide arguments for gay marriage, except freedom argument, if you have any.
Homophobic people for whatever reason I challenge you to a debate

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal 01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn"t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can"t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears" 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. 06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn"t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren"t full yet, and the world needs more children. 07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That"s why we have only one religion in America. 09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That"s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven"t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. You know this is all true so please tell my why you don't approve of homosexuality
Homophobic people for whatever reason I challenge you to a debate

Over population. Abortion as well as homsexuality are things that need to be legalized in order to slow down overpopulation. If you ban these things we are just going to get closer and closer to overpopulation and then what they would be hoping the just legalized these things from the start. The world only has enough natural resources for 9 billion people. Unless we could quickly populate another planet that can sustain life then we are going to have a mass famine and lack of resources and we will die out except for the rich. Not only would we die out but most life on this planet would die out we would need to keep cutting down trees and invading farm land animals would nothing to eat and nowhere to live. If we legalize avortion and homosexuality it will keep us from getting closer to overpopulation hopefully just in r Time to populate another planet.
Homophobic people for whatever reason I challenge you to a debate

Awkwardness is part of the life, but intensity matters. We humans tend to minimize unpleasant emotions. Another argument I would like to rise, a little more serious one, and the one that will counter your "homosexual community would know that most of the population is heterosexual" argument. Since masturbation is basically *ucking your own hand, and it is possible to ejaculate by masturbation, partner that attracts you is not necessary for sex. You can also have sex with partner you are not attracted to. This is why, if homosexuality was accepted by society, number of bisexuals would significantly grow.
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

This I plan will be opening arguments so set your case. In this round I will talk about how gay marriage helps the economy and how these people should have their freedom. And I will present other things that are legal today which violate religious beliefs. I will put sources in the comments at the end of the debate. The economy: A study by the huffingtonpost finds that gay marriage unions would boost the economy by 166 million dollars. It would help the wedding industries. In the state of Massachusetts they enjoyed a 111 million dollar boost in their economy which they could be spending on a vast majority of things. So the anti-gay marriage supporters claim it will damage Americas economy but it will actually do the direct opposite. It will help it grow. Freedom: Preventing people from further enhancing their love is a direct violation of the constitution. Why do we keep these people from marriage it is their sexual preference. Why should they be affected by a religion that they don't even follow? Lets look at abortion for example. Does it violate religious beliefs? Yes it does but is it the ethical thing to do to give women their freedom? Yes it is. So saying it violates a religious belief is true. But, is it the ethical thing to do to give these gay couples their freedom to marry? And, how does there marriage affect you? Will it change your life? If you haven't noticed a growing number of the U. S population is now in favor of same-sex marriage. By about 20 percent that's because Americans are now realizing that its the right thing to give these people their freedom. A very conservative and catholic nation: Ireland recently voted in favor of same-sex marriage even some Catholics voted in favor of this event. Like I said before people are now realizing that today is a different world. Do you think 2,000 years ago people came out as gay? No, but some people were probably gay. So for the freedom of the gay community gay marriage should be legalized. Have a nice day everyone. (Remember your opening argument should be fairly short)
Prisons should focus on rehabilitation and not punishment.

States should be concerned about justice. Whether you are trying to make an example of the prisoner or "cure" the prisoner, justice will if not right away, eventually be completely ignored. Like in Norway, if they are not rehabilitated they receive 5 more years and continue to receive 5 years more until it is determined that they are rehabilitated, even if the time served doesn't match the crime. I know you've said, that you don't think people should get more time if they are not "cured". But this is what will eventually happen. It has happened in Norway If you are trying to make an example out of them you will punish innocent people or let guilty people go as long as society views them as guilty or innocent. Which is also unjust and wrong. Consequently, states should be mindful of justice. Ensuring the person is truly guilty, making sure that the punishment meets the crime, and not whether or not they are You will say that it nothing could go wrong because you are looking out for the good of the prisoner. But, the treatment is still compulsory. And it is up to the punishers when the cure is reached and therefore largely subjective, and puts the prisoner on the level of a small child, unable to know right from wrong because you are trying to cure them against their will and possibly of things they do not view as wrong. Provide the prisoners with ways to better themselves, but don't make it compulsory. Encourage society to give them a second chance, as one who was paid the price for their crimes and offer them a second chance so that they won't feel the need to return the old way of life. But if you are not concerned with justice, evil will be the result, no matter pure your intentions.
Prisons should focus on rehabilitation and not punishment.

I am all for treating prisoners as human beings, however, there needs to be a punishment and a set time for incarceration. If you are trying to re-educate them and something or someone other than a set time decide when they are done with their time, then you are being unjust. If the end goal is rehabilitation or re-education and they have no desire for re-education, then what would have gotten them a couple months or years could turn into many years. Many people accuse promoters of punishment of seeking vengeance. However, though I won't speak for all, many are concerned with justice. The punishment should meet the crime, and once the sentence is met, they should be released regardless of their attitude because that is what justice requires. If you commit theft, you get so many months or years and no more period. If you commit fraud then you get more years, but don't get more years because you aren't "rehabilitated". Then if you commit another crime, the same applies. Though I think as a society, we should be more generous in interacting with ex-convicts, and we should give them opportunities to better themselves, treating them as the human beings they are, correcting wrong-think is dangerous. Though now it is only used to correct behavior, the next step is to correct perceived thought crimes. Saying, unless you reject your beliefs, you will lose your freedom and have to go through whatever re-education those in charge deem necessary. For example, if a certain religion or ideology is considered wrong. You will put these people through whatever treatment to make them aligns with what you or society deems as correct.
Prisons should focus on rehabilitation and not punishment.

Take a look at Norway for example. They're treated like acutal human beings, prisoners have nice rooms with computers(with internet), couches, comfortable beds, and even video game consoles. Guards also eat and play sports with the inmates, are un-uniformed, and treat prisoners kindly. In some prisons such as Halden (which is a maximum security prison by the way) has music studios with drums, guitars, etc., and encourage their inmates to spend most of their time oustide and playing sports to stay healthy, and even pay them to do so. When criminals in Norway leave prison, they tend to stay out. Norway's reoffending rate is 20% which is one of the lowest in the world. You already take away their freedom, why punish them even further?
The US should not be taking in the Refugees from the Syria due to the high risk of terror activity

This round I’ll make rebuttals to my opponent’s rebuttals, my additional and final arguments will be in the next round. R1: “But, just because they authorities in Paris found the terrorists of Belgian descent doesn't mean that they did not sympathize or even made contact with those within ISIS who are of Syrian descent. However, just because some ISIS terrorists may be of Syrian descent, it doesn’t justify fears towards all the Syrian refugees in general. In the previous part of the argument, Con had made a concession in regards to the Paris shooters being Belgian citizens, which in turn only shows how little the Syrian refugees actually have connection to ISIS. Hence, Pro’s argument here had done little to disprove my point. R2: “According to CNN (i am paraphrasing here) " 31 states have declared that they will not help in the relocation of Syrian refugees on American soil due to the knowledge that the attack on Paris was done during a time when the relocation of Refugees was happening". Now with that being said there is also the idea that there is tension and grudges still held by those who believe that the middle east conflict that has been going on now has taken too many lives and resent anyone who is from that region.” As seen in the quote ( “due to the knowledge that the attack on Paris was done during a time when the relocation of Refugees was happening”) The primary fear of these states come from the Paris attacks, and the concern that allowing the refugees will result in an attack similar to Texas. This is the exact concern I addressed in my first argument. As evidence had shown previously, the Syrian refugees had no direct connections to ISIS or similar groups. It takes the average refugee 2 years to be allowed entrance into the United States, if a terrorist wanted to infiltrate the west, they would be way more effective taking a fake visa and entering any country of choice within hours. R3: “there is a lot of opposition from one political party, the Republican party. now i am only touching on this so lets not blow up which side is right and which side is wrong. Being a Republican myself and hearing the views of other Republicans around me in my daily life, my understanding is that the people are actually worried about their lives, family, and the fate of this nation. And unfortuantely seeing how the Democratic party is for bringing in the Refugees there is an obvious opposition on this. the point im making here is that the timing of the influx of refugees is not right for the U.S. or its people.” Pro in this argument has committed the “bandwagon fallacy”, An argument in which the popularity of an opinion is used to justify the position. Or in other words “because Idea X is popular, therefore Idea X is true” This can be seen when Pro states the large number of opposition to the argument in the beginning of the paragraph. (Source: http://www.fallacyfiles.org... )