BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Censorship is unnecessary.

I would like to state that while I may have used Wikipedia for my arguement, it is, however, a verifiable source. If you disagree, please see: -Lundqvist, J.. "More pictures of Iranian Censorship". Retrieved on August 2007-01-21. -Bradbury, Ray. Fahrenheit 451. Del Rey Books. April 1991. -Dean, Cornelia (2007-01-31). "Scientists Criticize White House Stance on Climate Change Findings", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-09-19. -"www.freemuse.org/sw2338.asp". -Ian Mayes (2005-04-23). "The readers' editor on requests that are always refused", The Guardian. Retrieved on August 2007-01-21. -"Caution: big name ahead", The Observer (2002-01-27). Retrieved on August 2007-01-21. Your source, an article from church times, was written by Nick Spencer, Director of Studies at Theos, the public theology think tank. Theology is the study of God from a religious perspective. Therefore, theologists explore theories. ------ You said: "Morals simply means doing the >right< thing, & every single individual has morals. You don't have to be Christian to have morals, because no matter who you are, at some point in your life you will choose to do the >right< thing. That in itself is a display of your morals. " -Right is a completely subjective word. You cannot define what is "right" and what is "wrong", because everyone has their own views on this. You said: "Now, as far as psychological effects are concerned. Censorship in television, movies and magazines have an affect on us; even though we may not realize it." -TRUE, they do affect us psychologically. I am actually a PSYCHOLOGY major focusing in addictive behaviors, abnormal psychology, and mental disabilities. I do have a fair understanding of this concept. You said: "So as far as censorship being necessary in this sense, the answer is yes. The studies show that what we watch has an affect on us and our children. I guarantee that if violent images were censored from the media, the violence rate in children would decrease." -Congrats, you have successfully stated your opinion on this matter. I agree that what we watch has an affect on us, HOWEVER this in no way means that censorship is necessary. It may be beneficial to our culture, depending on how you interpret it. Might it be that if we take some of the money that is spent each year to censor what we are allowed to see and hear, and reinvest that into our schools or education programs, we could teach children that what they see on TV is just TV and has no jurisdiction in real life? Might it be that if we, as parents, made our children READ A BOOK every other night, they might learn something? Yes, you have stated how censorship CAN BE useful... However, you have in no sense proven that it is necessary, which was the burden of CON.
Censorship is unnecessary.

First off, I would like to say. .. MAN that was a lot of arguement on the moral side. Does censorship apply strongly to your own personal morals? I came across this interesting article on the internet while reading my daily Church Times. .. I would like to note a large quote from Issue 7574 - 16 May, 2008. Oh wait, you already did. Credits to CHURCH TIMES for my opponent's main arguement. . http://www.churchtimes.co.uk... ---- Anyways, moving on. The main arguement, at least that I got, was that while we may want our own personal freedoms to do as we please and view what we want, we need restrictions so that our children, neighbors, wives, etc. may not view these things. I do not feel this way. Here's a breakdown. You said: "I'll first go through each category of censorship and explain why each one is necessary. " This my friend, is your responsibility, and I'm not sure you have done this. The main things I took out of your arguement were: "To prevent other people from choosing their own ends is to deny their capacity for autonomous choice and ultimately to deny their humanity," it stated. Censorship is thus not only politically oppressive and economically counterproductive, but also morally dubious. " -True. "censorship of films and magazines is necessary to uphold moral standards. " -What "moral standards"? Christian morals? My morals? Yours? Morals is a very subjective word. "adults should be allowed to see whatever films they like, even if some people think the films violent or pornographic" -True "When the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey asked in 1995 whether we thought "people over the age of 16 are old enough to decide for themselves what they want to see and read", >>>>>48<<<<< per cent of respondents thought they were, against 32 per cent who did not. " -Did you read what you posted? -Thus, in your arguement, it appears to me that you have unwittingly proven my point and undermined your own. Am I wrong? I will close with a few quotes of my own. We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859 The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart ----- I would continue here, and elaborate on the other forms of censorship, but I'm not sure I need to.
Censorship is unnecessary.

==== Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor. The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored. Censorship is the act or practice of removing material from things we encounter every day on the grounds that it is obscene, vulgar, and/or highly objectionable. Whether it is on TV, in music, books, or on the Internet, censorship is an inescapable part of human society. Censorship can be broken into different categories: ==== -1.MORAL censorship is the means by which any material that contains what the censor deems to be of questionable morality is removed. The censoring body disapproves of what it deems to be the values behind the material and limits access to it. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale, especially child pornography, which is censored in most jurisdictions in the world. In another example, graphic violence resulted in the censorship of the "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" movie entitled Scarface originally completed in 1932. -2.MILITARY censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Additionally, military censorship may involve a restriction on information or media coverage that can be released to the public. -3.POLITICAL censorship occurs when governments hold back secret information from their citizens. The logic is to prevent the free expression needed to rebel. Any dissent against the government is thought to be a "weakness" for the enemy to exploit. Campaign tactics are also often kept secret: ex. the Watergate scandal. -4.RELIGIOUS censorship is the means by which any material objectionable to a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith. -5.CORPORATE censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to halt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light. Privately owned corporations in the business of reporting the news also sometimes refuse to distribute information due to the potential loss of advertiser revenue or shareholder value which adverse publicity may bring. --------- Now, with that established, I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD DO AWAY WITH CENSORSHIP. I am simply saying that we don't need it. In order to win this debate, my opponent must prove beyond reasonable doubt that censorship is, in fact, necessary.
Soccer is a lame sport

Firstly, thank you for this debate. I look forward to it. 1. What is the sport really watched for? The 'goals' themselves are not what is looked forward to in a soccer game. What it is watched for is the battle of strength, speed, finesse, and skill to earn the better team these goals. Therefore, the low amount of goals doesn't contribute to how exciting it is to watch. 2. The sport isn't just watched, it is played. You have to think of the entertainment value for the players as well. In most games, there are two eleven man teams, constituting twenty-two players that all are gaining happiness from this sport. 3. Many people watch soccer. In the 2010 FIFA world cup there were around 26 billion total views in 64 games. (http://www.cbsnews.com...-/ )
Social Media

You have brought about some great points pro-social media, things that I will think about for a while. You have also defended your position nicely, good job. It really sounded like you did your research despite not providing any sources. But some tips for your next debate: You said that I should include my sources, but you did not provide any, even if you do end up winning it might help you in the long run. Providing sources makes your evidence stronger and more sufficient. Also, I think that your ending is a little non-respectful. I try and be respectful to everyone in my debates because to be fairly honest most of these debates are just for fun. I understand that you have a strong opinion about this, but that doesn"t mean you can"t be respectful of it. The ending of "WHAT THE FU--" was uncalled for, and swearing was uncalled for too. Until the votes role in, good luck you provided a great debate
Social Media

It's more than just a coincidence that these traits for teens are becoming more prominent as social media grows more popular", actually, if you look at the graphs for social media use and teen depression/suicides, there isn't much correlation to be seen. It can be concluded that teen depression is probably caused, for the most part, by a change of culture and people's mindsets rather than social media. "once my friend got Instagram and learned that people at our school had been spreading intense rumors about her in comments", the irony here is that you're trying to debunk my claim that schools can bring more depression than social media, then say that the people from their school were spreading the rumors. Don't criticize the medium, criticize the source of the problem. As for cyber-bullying being the problem that it is, fair enough, though again, it's much easier to be hurt by a real person than some anonymous figure you see online. Social media makes it easier to spread criticism, yes, but the difference between social media and other mediums? You can stop. You don't have to check Twitter every day, nobody's forcing you to check Instagram. As for people not wanting to confront people in person, you're out of your mind. I've experienced it many times, saying people don't want to confront you face-to-face is ignorant. And it's not like I'm small. I'm 6 feet tall and people are saying things to my face. As for the abductions you mentioned, this is shockingly rare, and, unless you're an idiot online, you're not getting abducted. When it comes to social media leading to poor grades, that's not the social media, that's people over-using it rather than being responsible. And, finally, your conclusion that social media should be taken away... WHAT THE FU--- *Breathes in* Socialization Helplines Entertainment Friends Education Spreading messages Being up to date Bringing about the rise of entire industries Causing unprecedented innovations And changing the entire world as we know it forever. Now, thanks to social media, SpaceX is getting people to Mars so we can change the next world. If you think getting rid of it is a good idea, then to be honest, I don't have a response.
Social Media

Firstly, link the article you're referring to. It's hard to assess your source if I don't know what it is. Second, these traits developing more in teens with the rise of social media is, firstly, the fallacy of post hoc ergo procter hoc (After, therefore because of), secondly, more likely the result of a massive change in culture. If anything, I'd argue school is a much bigger cause of depression, social anxiety, etc. Bullying is a massive problem, and simply getting rid of social media won't fix it. While cyber-bullying is a problem, it seems wrong to attack the medium which it's done through, rather than the bullying itself. If social media were to vanish, there would be unprecedented amounts of social and economic backlash. Social media gets businesses off the ground, builds relationships, along with other things. Cyber-bullying is a problem, but you're blowing it up far beyond the proper proportions, and, again, the medium through which it's done through isn't the issue we need to be attacking. Also, when it comes to self-esteem, firstly, you haven't linked this research, but let's assume it's true for the sake of argument. Self-esteem is something easily damaged by seeing people who look better than you, are better at something, etc., and on platforms like social media, edited photos of perfect bodies are commonplace. Yes, this is an issue, but again, self-esteem issues go much deeper than that. It's not as simple as "social media did it". Issues with it are much more complicated than an explanation that simple. Again, we need to be getting to the root of the problem. These self esteem issues could just as easily be caused in an environment like school. Overall, your issue in thinking seems to be that solving complex problems like depression, anxiety, self-esteem issues, etc. is just removing social media, but the positive effects of social media far outweigh these problems that I'm skeptical social media is the main cause of for the most part. And again, think of all the joy and happiness social media has brought. What has social media done? Subreddits and websites have prevented suicides, inspired massive social movements, formed long-lasting friendships, brought people new information, and allowed us to have this debate. If you think getting rid of social media is going to fix such complex issues, then you're not grasping the weight of these problems. Then there's me. I have first-hand experience. I'll be honest, sometimes I feel like I'm bordering on depression, but let me tell you, social media is one of the things that makes sure I'm still bordering. I've never been hurt on social media like I have in environments like school. It's brought me so much personal happiness, and perhaps that's the reason why I'm so defensive of it. You're not just attacking social media, you're attacking a massive coping method and part of my life. Getting rid of social media won't fix these issues, but if there's one thing that can, I'll tell you. Two words: Social media
Social Media

Use of social media is taking big emotional and mental tolls on teens. "Negative," says that American University, the research found a link between negative body image and social media, especially among girls. They are bombarded by edited photos that insist they must be perfect. This evidence helps to prove my claim because social media was found to be linked to negative body image. This is an emotional and mental thing that no kid should go through, but they are more because of social media. Edited photos of "perfect girls" are always being seen around in ads, but now it is spreading more through social media. When a girl comes upon it, it could greatly decrease their self-esteem, taking a big emotional toll. The article "Negative" says "It has been linked to increased anxiety, depression, and decreased relationship skills." This evidence helps to prove my claim because the research from this article states that social media has been linked with many negative traits. Increased anxiety and depression have come from social media before, and both are emotionally and mentally exhausting. Decreased relationship skills is another thing that has come from social media. It is bad for many people and it has started now to come from social media. These types of traits developing when teens use social media more often is not a good sign.
Corporal punishment should be banned from schools

Corporal punishment has shown to be ineffective by many studies and health care experts. It has also shown that students that have been subjected to corporal punishment have lower IQ's. while it is on the decline it is STILL legal in 19 states including Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. In all 50 states it is illegal to hit a prisoner, animal, or someone in the military, yet it is perfectly legal in those 19 states to strike a child. I welcome your arguments.
Corporal punishment should be banned from schools

My opponent supplies us by a new article from the famously liberal abc news. (I'm liberal myself but for this debate I have to admit that this is an extremely biased source). They essentially tear apart the idea of corporal punishment based on the 'theory' (for which no evidence is supplied) that corporal punishment increases aggression in children (which is ironic because you'd think having felt the force of violence that children would be less aggressive).Now I shall explain exactly why corporal punishment needn't be banned from SCHOOLS despite it's rightful ban in other places.As I said in round 1, " A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of “but you can't take away my freedom”, “you have no right” or “I have rights”. In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact." corporal punishment would allow the teacher, in a strictly monitored manner, to spank the child for not only the original reason but for the rudeness of the remark, is rather ineffective and useless (and my opponent supplied zero evidence otherwise).Also,, was my contention that "If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. Detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior." The only point against this was that my opponent claimed to have first-hand seen reduction in repeats of detention as opposed to spanking issues but this easily could be because of more lenience in the school when it had detentions.I re-iterate that Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime. (Source R#1)
Corporal punishment should be banned from schools

Also, I am only talking about the US. While one in five is a lot, has the students' academic record changed? I'm assuming you're from the UK so I pose this question to you, do parents have the option as to whether or not their child can be paddled? Here in the South most of the schools have forms stating the guidelines of corporal punishment. Speaking of detention, there are numerous ways you can make it effective. I'm in college now, but when I was in school, detention was copying the handbook. Most students were never back in that detention room. Most students who were paddled, however, were in there lots of times because once again I will say this, corporal punishment is ineffective. Once again, thank you for debating me.
Corporal punishment should be banned from schools

NOTE: You didn't say USA only so I shall use statistics and facts from aroudn the globe (mainly UK).Now onto the main debate. In a survey completed by the Times Educational supplement [1], 6000 teachers were questioned. One in five believed that class room behaviour had deteriorated since the abolition of corporal punishment and they believed the education system would improve with the re-introduction of corporal punishment. We should adhere to the teachers requests.It is inevitable that bad classroom behaviour will filter into life outside school. You only have to look at the crime statistics to see that crime has increased dramatically since the abolition of corporal punishment. Between 1981, when corporal punishment was legal and in 1997, after the abolition of corporal punishment, there was a 67% increase in crime [2]. Children’s behaviour has been adversely affected by the rights culture we have in Britain. A teacher cannot threaten a detention, something they are allowed to do, without the retort of “but you can't take away my freedom”, “you have no right” or “I have rights”. In fact children are acutely aware of how much power they have over the teachers by way of laws and rights, and they use every opportunity to remind the teachers of that fact. If we re-introduced corporal punishment this back chat would cease and the power would be retained by the teachers. Detention is not going to be taken seriously by anyone. What does detention do other than waste your time? If you have ADHD or a creative mind you'll have a blast, effectively learning nothing to *correct* your behavior. If this is the only effective authority a teacher has for an out of control student then that teacher is and probably knows his/her authority is rather pitiful. Sources[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...
I can not prove that I exist.

To clarify, both Prove and Exist were from the same source (Marriam-Webster- http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Short and sweet beginning to this debate: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. The act of grasping existence as a statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness - consciousness being the ability to perceive that which exists. Thus, existence exists. Thus, by directly observing the word exists, I can say that I do in fact exist. A consciousness without something to be conscious of is a direct contradiction. Before one can even say they are conscious, they have to be conscious of something. Therefore, something exists, and namely the observer, the conscious being that observes the existing nature that gives them the faculty of consciousness, exists. Thus, I can prove that I exist by the direct nature of my consciousness. I hope this is an appropriate start! Good luck to my opponent. Regards, Vi