BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
users under 18 using Facebook

Thanks for responding. I’ll make this quick since character limit is 3000. Rebuttal/Arguments People under 18 are do not always post depressing stuffs My opponent argued that teens do not think before they act. The argument is highly flawed since my opponent assumes that teens are dumb and gullible. I’m a teenager, but I think before I post. As I said, I use FB for different productive and positive purposes, not just for attention-whoring. Why should we ban FB to all underage kids just because some underaged kids posts depression online? Modern Communication is vital to society I’ve already explained this. As I said, Social Networking Sites are very beneficial. My opponent argues that it’s a weak form of communication. How so? Why would I want to waste a €500 flight ticket from Munich to Manila just to talk to my family if I can just talk to them online? Call it weak, but it’s cheaper, easier, faster and even better. There are some occasions where having an online conference makes life easier than having to set up a real life meeting. Privacy Issues & Bullying In regards to bullying, I already explained that children are safer if we discipline the parents and the parties involved. We also need more laws against bullying. Banning FB is unnecessary. In regards to the privacy issues, FB has a ToS, where you need to agree before signing up. Also, FB has its privacy settings which are easy to modify and change. Our info is safe as long as you know what you’re doing. Facebook’s advantages override its disadvantages. Already explained, please extend. If we ban the #1 most popular website from minors, a huge fiasco may arise, which is more disastrous than you think. Also, as I said, it’s infeasible if we ban FB to the underaged. Banning FB is a breach to rights and deprives the youth of certain opportunities We have the right to communicate, to express one self, to choose and to access the internet. FB is a tool that exercises those rights. If we ban FB to the youth, we would be violating their rights. Conclusion CON’s arguments are very shallow and lack accuracy, please extend my previous arguments that weren’t refuted by my opponent previously. Banning FB to minors does not protect the youth, it would just make their lives more bad. Thanks and good luck!
users under 18 using Facebook

Yesterday, I started to give some reasons for under 18 users to be restricted from using Facebook. Here I will give you many reasons to understand and dwell on. Teenagers do not think before they act so they will have irrational or emotional status updates. Facebook user's would prefer updates to be insightful, funny, or useful. Most under 18 users are looking for attention or compliments with updates like " I'm bored, I feel fat, going to work" or seeking help with "life sucks right now," then please call a friend or go somewhere else. Have real human contact. It also gives a false sense of friendship and community. The lack of social contact, really gets to be troubling. It may lead to be the most pressing social problem of the new generation. Yes , Facebook does help to create bonds between people and family far and near, but it is still a much weaker, superficial bond than good phone call or face-to-face communication. Another dangerous thing for a developing teenager is the horrible human trait, but undeniable that we constantly judge, compare and analyze ourselves and one another. Facebook is the ultimate provider of that platform for its user's to do that. The constant fight to be the best and be number one on Facebook can be detrimental to your mental health, and Facebook can easily facilitate the desire to do so. The only advice for kids today is to be yourself and do your own thing, but Facebook makes that impossible. My last and crucial point is that being under 18 they do not understand the loss of privacy. Anything they post on the internet, including on Facebook, can potentially be accessed by anyone in the world. That is weird to me and they may not understand that. In addition, people you have not seen in years can know a lot about you, and contrast some lies. It also broadcasts about the last family vacation you went on, who your friends are before and now, how many tattoos and piercing you have, your relationship status now and prior, any bad experiences, underage alcohol or drug abuse,education history and more. Does your life experiences and achievements become invalid unless the entire internet world knows about them or approves them? Is this your real life or made up one? Facebook sometimes feels like you are reading other people diaries. And lastly, I still firmly believe that there's nothing wrong with Facebook for adults. I do have one taunting last fact, I will share now and elaborate on in the near future, Facebook is an uncontrollable addiction for adults and kids. Let's protect our youth.
users under 18 using Facebook

Thank you for instigating this interesting topic. I’d like to point out as a clarification for the readers that the issue at hand is whether users under 18 should be allowed to use Facebook. My opponent will be negating the resolution and I will be affirming it. For this debate, I will be arguing that Social Networking Sites like Facebook have enormous benefits and contributions to society and modern communication. I’m under 18 who is studying in Europe away from my parents and I have Facebook. Why? Because it’s mainly to connect and communicate to my family and friends overseas. Not only that, I use it for reference and educational purposes. I’m subscribed to news and political pages to get some information about current events. With FB, school life is also easier since I can communicate with my classmates to get updated with assignments and exams (what to review, etc). Also, FB has apps and games for entertainment and leisure time to kill boredom. It very much gives a positive impact on life. FB also helps people overcome social anxiety and be healthier by expressing themselves online. Anything’s possible in FB, people can express their opinions, ideas and interests here which makes it very popular. Next, I’d like to point out that billions of people are connected online. Banning underaged kids from Facebook is not only unnecessary, but it’s also unfeasible. Basically, all my opponent argued in R1 are shallow hypotheticals and minor boo-boos of Facebook inhabited by the young generation. Facebook is for kids 13+. By this age, most kids know what they are doing. So, we shouldn’t ban underaged kids just because they troll around, and if cyber bullying occurs, we need to discipline the parties that are involved and responsible. We need to make anti-bullying laws stricter. Banning FB from minors won’t do any good since it will seriously harm the majority. We must consider the benefits of this popular Social Networking Site because it superiorly overrides its disadvantages. I will let my opponent elaborate her contentions further next round then I will explain my premises more accurately after. Thanks and good luck!
users under 18 using Facebook

I'd like to start my debate off my bringing up the topic of Facebook. I myself have a Facebook and I use it to keep in touch with family members over seas and in America. I also use Facebook connect with my friends and peers from college. Many people use this social network for similar reasons. Now age can become a factor when we are talking about children as young as middle school having a Facebook. Here I will explain some of my main reasoning against this. For starters, young users having a Facebook, I believe, is almost inappropriate. Not to say that all children are using this social network for bad things, but there are some who are. Cyber bulling has increased tremendously over the years and I believe that Facebook plays a huge roll in this. Children are making fun of one another on statuses, putting up inappropriate or embarrassing photos of one another, and bashing each other on there Facebook walls. I think that Facebook is just another outlet for children to bully one because they are not mature enough to understand the right way to behave on this sort of social network. Also, why does a child even need a Facebook? Was Facebook not created at first for a way for college students to "hook up?" I believe that after the age 18 it is more appropriate for a user to join Facebook, because by then there is reason to. Examples being what I had stated in the beginning. Facebook being used to keep in touch with family members and friends, especially if a person has moved or went away to college. I see absolutely no legit reason for a child to have a Facebook.
The Kleptin Brand "Pick-Your-Own-Debate!"

I do not accept my opponent's non-acceptance of my resignation from the original debate resolution. I do not feel inclined to argue about video games at this time, and for that I apologize for teasing my opponent kleptin with such a tantalizing resolution. Either way, Metal Gear is still better. I will provide this video as an example of one facet of the games which makes it a step above the rest, the in game randomness. From Metal Gear Solid 2: http://www.youtube.com... Metal Gear Solid 3: http://www.youtube.com... I know their not all that great to the outsider, but whatever. Just filling up some space. okay by 10 seconds left.
The Kleptin Brand "Pick-Your-Own-Debate!"

My opponent's argument was incomplete and I do not accept his resignation :P Though the Metal Gear games were admittedly good for their era, I would argue that the best series of video games is not Metal Gear, but Final Fantasy. http://en.wikipedia.org... Final Fantasy had modest beginnings, but was a brilliant idea that eventually allowed it to spread its wings and branch out as one of the most stunning aspects of gaming to ever grace the several systems it was on. Coming from a generation of dungeon crawlers and other fantasy-related games, Final Fantasy set a benchmark in its ingenuity, especially in the concepts of battle, random encounters, the world map, and plot. The franchise has expanded far from FF1 and is now allows for the freest, most diverse type of gameplay out there, while remaining true to its fantasy roots. I shall add more later.
The Kleptin Brand "Pick-Your-Own-Debate!"

RESOLVED: The Metal Gear of games is the best series of videogames." I Affirm. The brainchild of Hideo Kojima, the Metal Gear series of games are amazing in many different aspects. I'll be talking about the high quality of the games, the storyline, and other qualities which make Metal Gear series of games the best of all. 1. Quality of the games. Every metal gear (solid) game has been of high quality themselves, utilizing to the maximum the resources that they had with available technology. Metal Gear (1) was an open ended stealth action game, which is quite a lot when you consider that it was made in 1987. It made intrusions into a military base seem fun for the first time. Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake was an equally impressive game, building a...... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SCREW IT. Kleptin, I offer you the options of either begining a new debate about anything within reason with the 3 rounds we have remaining/ not respond and declare yourself victor. Either one is okay with me. I apologize for my ineptitude with regards to coming up with resolutions that are interesting and worth debating.
The Kleptin Brand "Pick-Your-Own-Debate!"

Greetings, I seems that you one of the best debaters on this here website, so I was certainly excited to find this in the challenge period. I hope these topics will be diverse enough for you, if there is an issue with these topics, communicate through the comment section on this debate, so we can hammer something out. 1. The proprotional representation system would be better for federal legislative elections in the United States, than the current system, the plurality single vote system. 2. Jerusalem should not be under exclusive control of Israel. 3. The Beatles is the greatest music group of the 20th century. (bonus) 4. The Supreme Court Should have ruled in favor of DC in the case of DC v. Heller.
The Kleptin Brand "Pick-Your-Own-Debate!"

This is a special debate in which the one who accepts the challenge will be the one suggesting the topics of debate. There will be 5 rounds of this debate. 1A: This introductory post 1B: My opponent will suggest 3 topic of debate, of a wide variety of categories. The three topics of debate suggested cannot all be within the same topic of discussion, (ie. All three cannot be about Religion, All three cannot be about Politics), cannot include both sides of a particular argument, and must be broad enough for a layman to be able to adequately debate with limited research (ie. No extraordinarily complicated Physical theorems). 2A: I will respond with my choice of the three, or rule that the choice of the three subjects violates rules stipulated in 1A. If I make that ruling, 3 new topics of debate will be given as a comment and I shall respond with my choice of those 3. 2B: After choosing one topic, my opponent will then pick a position, either PRO or CON. If my opponent picks PRO, he/she shall use the rest of 2B as his opening post, and FORFEIT 5B by submitting, as his or her response, the phrase "Thank you for this debate" repeatedly until the character limit is satisfied. If my opponent picks CON, he/she shall choose a position and wait for my opening post in 3A. The rest of the rounds will be devoted to a typical 3 round debate.
Guns'N Roses was the Greatest Rock Band of All Time

Dimebag Darrell's guitar playing was far more intriguing, interesting, and intricate in contrast to Slash's. Conversely, Paul Gilbert may not have been an aesthetic musician but his playing style was far more sophisticated than slash's. As for moving melodies, you would find that in Metallica's Fade to Black and quite frankly Kirk hammett couldn't even play one clean solo. I did not state that neoclassical employs blues derivatives but instead I distinctly stated "even neoclassical shredders like Yngwie Malmsteen (personal favourite) based their music in blues to some degree", Malmsteen even claimed that he was a fan of blues while growing up and its a known fact that he was greatly influenced by guitar entrepreneur Jimmie Hendrix (who incidentally played nothing but the blues scale). Under the analogy that "GnR was a return to a true blues based Rick, in the same vein as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabvath, and Cream before them." and that "No one has ever been able to play solos that were as methodically mixed as Slash within the context of a song." wasn't Jimmy Page considered by many the way you described Slash as a guitarist. Also, you stated that "They sounded great acoustic and electric." how many other bands out there sound as good as they do on electric as well as acoustic? Lots. Additionally, you further stated "GnR was good enough to a washed up Bob Dylan tune..." how many other bands out there have done excellent cover versions of other bands? Many. Bands like Dream Theater had far better chemistry musically as well as personally in contrast to GnR. Poison does correlate to blues, take their song "every rose has its thorn" for example. As for Motley Crue, take their song "girls, girls, girls" for example. I personally find Yngwie Malmsteen's solos to be intriguing, exciting, and astonishing.
Guns'N Roses was the Greatest Rock Band of All Time

Calling Dimebag Darrell a virtuoso is like calling Saddam Hussein a pretty cool guy. He was an average guitar player who legacy got vastly overhyped because of his premature death. Paul Gilbert on the other hand, is an excellent player, but he is not a great musician. His music is dry and non-melodic. Slash's guitar playing hit's the sweet spot of every song perfect, his feeling is tremendous, and his melodies are moving. Perfect example would be the November Rain solo. While there were not as many notes as would be in say, a Malmsteen solo, Slash played more expressively and said more with the melody of that solo than nearly any other guitar solo in rock history. As for your failure to understand different genres of music, Neo-Classical is not blues based. It is classically based. You see, "neo" means "new" in Latin, i.e. new classical music. Further, most of the rock music of the 80's was so far removed from the blues that any similarities would be undetectable. GnR was a return to a true blues based rock, in the same vein as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Cream before them. Where there is any connection between Poison and blues is unimaginable to me. The fact that Axl Rose eventually caused the original line-up of GnR to break up in no way takes away from their accomplishments and abilities as a band. They played great together, the band meshed tight. Their were no chemistry in their music. Their problems outside of the music cannot be used to evaluate their quality as a band. GnR put together a level of musical arrangements that has never been rivaled. The way in which the all of the parts flow together to create a complex atmosphere in the music is awe inspiring. GnR had a tremendous stage presence that could dominate a packed stadium. They played great live. They played great in the studio. GnR also had a diverse catalog of music with a wide variety of interesting musical ideas. Look at Welcome to the Jungle, Patience, November Rain, and Don't Cry. Each of those tracks is distinctly different from the three. GnR sounded great in major keys and minor keys. They sounded great acoustic and electric. GnR was good enough to a washed up Bob Dylan tune and turn into an absolutely moving anthem which tremendous power and emotion. There is no other band that has ever had the ability to diversify their set list as well as GnR, while still maintaining a top-notch sound and their own unique quality to the music. No band has ever had a dual guitar attack as effective as GnR. No one has ever been able to play solos that were as melodically perfect as Slash within the context of a song. GnR was an absolute powerhouse of a rock band. They had the edge, they had the intensity, but they also had fantastic ear for the sound of the band as a whole. No other band has ever had the complete Rock'N Roll package to the level that Guns'N Roses did.
Guns'N Roses was the Greatest Rock Band of All Time

In opposition, slash's meager knowledge in music theory is what dramatically differentiated him from many of the guitar virtuosos who were already successful before his emergence. Such virtuosos included: Dimebag Darrell from Pantera and Paul Gilbert from Racer X. Many of these guitarists saw him as the "d student" of rock and roll. As for your insinuation that GnR are "blues based rock" which as a die hard metal and rock fan I have never once heard of this genre. Isn't all rock and metal blues based, even neoclassical shredders like Yngwie Malmsteen (personal favourite) based their music on blues to some degree. Furthermore, hair metal was heavily reliant on blues, take bands like Poison and Motley Crue for example. GnR's chemistry was debilitated by Axl Rose's persona. Even the other members stated that he was too difficult to work with.
Guns'N Roses was the Greatest Rock Band of All Time

-Firstly, GnR's lead guitarist Slash was not conversant in music theory, in fact, when it came to solos he had little idea as to what he was playing (except for Sweet Child O Mine as that song employed the use of relative minor) While Slash may have lacked an explicit theoretical base for his solos, he made up for it technical proficiency, his ability to play melodically, and his flawless sense of timing in the pocket. Secondly, how could GnR have been considered hair metal when their very first album consisted of textbook hard, blues based rock. You say that they "converted" to rock, but they started out as rock, so that point is invalid. Comparing a classic hair metal track like "Nothin but a Good Time" to "Welcome to the Jungle" shows a distinct difference in the fundamental idea of the music. And lastly, GnR's lacked chemistry on a personal level. On a musical level, they meshed fantastically. The interlocking dual guitar work of Slash and Izzy Stradlin exemplifies how well they played together.
Guns'N Roses was the Greatest Rock Band of All Time

I accept the challenge of this debate. My first rebuttal states the reasons why GnR are not the one of the greatest rock bands of all time (since no rules have been established I will thusly start). Firstly, GnR's lead guitarist Slash was not conversant in music theory, in fact, when it came to solos he had little idea as to what he was playing (except for Sweet Child O Mine as that song employed the use of relative minor). Secondly, GnR were considered a hair metal band but were formed in the last years of hair metal and as such were considered by many far more successful hair metal bands as the outsiders in their targeted genre. To follow up the previous insinuation. due to GnR's late arrival in the hair metal trend, they had to convert to rock in order to conform and ultimately make money, thereby damaging their integrity. Furthermore, GnR had horrible chemistry between their members which ultimately led to their downfall when they disbanded.
The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control Laws

Resolution: The United States should impose Stronger, More Effective Gun Control LawsThis resolution can also be interpretted as the U.S. Congress Should pass stronger, more effective gun control legislation than we have now, to deal with the surge in mass gun shootings over the last three years and the 491,930 cases of gun violence the nation experiences on average annually. (On average, 33,000 Americans are killed with guns each year [1], and contrary to popular belief, statistics show that gun violence has not decreased over the last decade [2]).First Round is for acceptance only. (However, Con make a brief statement about his position on this issue in ROUND 1 and even provide 1 to 5 sources to back up his claims.)[1] (http://www.americanprogress.org...)[2] (http://www.dailykos.com...)