BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should every home have a TV

I will be arguing that, yes, everyone home should have a TV.I will defer to the next round to refute my opponent's points.1. TV can be used for Educational and Informational PurposesThe resolution states "TV", not cable, or satellite tv, so it is entirely possible, and even easy, for the family to purchase old DVD's and video cassetes to watch educational programs, such as Cailou, Cyber Chases, Zoboomafo, and Sesame Street, or social-accpetance programing (shows that teach kids how to interact with each other) like Arthur. There are a myriad of shows to watch, none of which will have a negative effect on the child, though there are some that do. Even barring this with the kids, news casts and weather reports are pushed through with television. Crime reports and political speeches and discussions are pushed through with tv. I will concede that there is always some slant with this programs, but a conscientious observer will watch at least two or three different news stations. More than this, advertising and promotional campaigns are pushed through, which, dependent on the time, relate to activities that kids will generally participate in. All of these things give information to adults, and parents, in order for them to make plans. 2. TV can be used for Family TimeAll of the shows listed above can be seen as a family activity, if applicable (not all people who own TV's have families with them). The show Wipeout is a very family-friendly show, it promotes friendly competition, and has a bit of humor thrown in. I only mention this because my father , my siblings, and myself would all on, or around, the couch and watch it. Pretty enjoyable time, no effort on any of our parts, in terms of setting things up, or cleaning, or moving, and sometimes this is a good thing. You always want to promote health, but relaxation is critical too.Neither of those points is to suggest that everyone should blow money they don't have on a TV they don't need, but there are TV sets of minimal, or low, cost that are not HD quality, but will get most, if not all, of the same channels, if you want to get cabe, or will play video cassetes and DVD's, if you are willing to buy DVD's, Video Cassettes, and a DVD/VCR combo set. All of these can be found at a low cost, so money wouldn't necessarily be an issue. *Don't take this to be an ad campaign. I am simply stating a few of the more productive uses of TV.In a household, whether there is a single person, a couple, or a family, all of these things will be beneficial. Even the less educational, more entertaining shows can be beneficial. Comedy can be found throughout most reality TV shows and cartoons, and there are some reality TV shows that show a very complex process being done, such as Bar Rescue and Love it or List it. There is no reason to watch cartoons all day everyday, but that has less to do with the existence of a TV, and more to do with choice of channels, and you can't really impede upon someone's right to use their assets as they please if they aren't affecting you.I look forward to my opponents arguments.
This house believes that Mother Teresa was a fraud

CONCLUSION1) My opponent concedes that the "donation was not fraudulent." Excellent.2 + 3) Again, it doesn't matter if she didn't spend her money on the poor. The question is whether or not she was a fraud. She never said she would give her money to the poor. It's not even misrepresentation, never mind fraud.4) One may indeed ask where the millions have gone, but this is not evidence that she engaged in fraudulent activities. I'd like to know where the money went, but it hasn't been embezzled, she used legitimate monies donated to her order for her own use and placed it in various secret accounts. That is not fraud. She did not sign a contract with her donors stating her intent to spend the money on the poor. Credulous people donated money to her order with no strings attached. None of this is fraud.
This house believes that Mother Teresa was a fraud

1. The donation was not fraudulent. The fact remains that the funds she received from donations were used for untruthful purposes. Acquiring money from oppressive regimes when you claim to fight oppression is simply hypocritical. 2. Again, it is irrelevant if she actually used some of the funds for charitable work. Even Hitler used state funds for social welfare... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Her missions have been described as homes for the dying by doctors visiting several of these establishments. Doctors observed a significant lack of hygiene, even unfit conditions, as well as a shortage of actual care, inadequate food, and no painkillers. But the authors say the problem is not a lack of money, as the foundation created by Mother Teresa has raised hundred of millions of pounds. They also say that following numerous natural disasters in India she offered prayers and medallions of the Virgin Mary but no direct or monetary aid. 4. But she accepted the Legion of Honour and a grant from the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti and although millions of dollars were transferred to the various bank accounts, most of the accounts were kept secret. Given the parsimonious management of Mother Teresa's works, one may ask where the millions of dollars for the poorest of the poor have gone? (1.)http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com... (2.)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
This house believes that Mother Teresa was a fraud

The proposition is that Mother Teresa was a fraud. It does not matter a jot whether she refused to buy food for her patients, or inflicted severe pain on them by using blunt needles. She might have enjoyed killing small animals in her spare time. It matters not.Was Mother Teresa a fraud? No.Just two of your arguments relate to fraud, each of which I shall examine forthwith.1. Mother Teresa accepted money from the "psychopathic" Duvaliers, yes, but this was a donation. She did not fraudulently acquire the money. It might be morally dubious, but it is not fraud.2. You cite Stern Magazine's report. It states that, in 1991 alone, Mother Teresa's order, in England, took in DM 5.3 million, and incurred expenses (including charitable expenses) of DM 360,000, or less than 7%. The rest of the money was moved to her central account in Rome, and used for unknown purposes. Quite a bit of this money was used to build more missions as you admit. There is no suggestion of fraud or embezzlement. There is just the question, where did the money go? It was legitimate money donated to the order, and not fraudulently obtained.I'm an atheist, and I've read Hitchens' book, so I'm sympathetic, but you have not proved your case.
This house believes that Mother Teresa was a fraud

This will be a rather short opening argument. In my opinion, it's all that's needed to defend the proposition. We all know Mother Teresa, the sweet, altruist, saint-like lady who devoted her life to the poor. However, the truth is far grimmer. 1.According to those who've volunteered there, Mother Teresa's missions are squalid cesspits run along violent, authoritarian lines. There are reports of unruly children being tied to beds and beaten, of outdated equipment not being replaced, and of needles being reused in countries with high HIV infection rates (such as Haiti) until they were so blunt they caused pain. All of this wrapped up in a culture of unquestioning obedience, secrecy, and control that is said to resemble a cult. 2.This might all be fine if the Missionaries were doing some good, but they weren't. In 1991, German magazine Stern revealed that only 7 percent of donations to the organization were used for charity. The rest was funneled into secret bank accounts or used to build more missions. There are reports that missions won"t even buy bread to feed their inmates, preferring instead to rely only on donated food. 3.And where does all this money come from? Well, some of it comes from regular, kind-hearted folk giving what they can. A heck of a lot more came from some of the most evil men who ever lived. Mother Teresa herself personally took large donations from the psychopathic Haitian dictator publicly defending his blood-soaked rule in return. In the 1990s, fraudster Charles Keating donated 1.25 million of stolen dollars to the Missionaries. When asked to return the fraudulent money, Mother Teresa simply stayed silent. 4.Mother Teresa undoubtedly did some good things in her time, but they may yet be overshadowed by her despicale legacy. In 2010, Forbes revealed that the first home she set up had a mortality rate of over 40 percent. If the poor have friends like her, they no longer need enemies. References: (1.)http://www.forbes.com... (2.)http://www.theguardian.com... (3.)http://www.slate.com... (4.)http://en.wikipedia.org... (5.)http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com... (6.)http://www.srai.org... (7.)http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com...
Vaccination is beneficial

Alright, after an hour of research, I realize this debate is essentially unwinnable. I cannot prove that the majority of vaccinations are not beneficial, and actually, upon further reflection, I really shouldn't have accepted this debate, and I don't know why I did. There is just no way I can honestly defend against this! I'll ask for mercy on the voting pole, but pro deserves the win, I made a slight miscalculation....sorry!
Vaccination is beneficial

N00b snipers welcome! My contention is that Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe. I will assume BoP for demonstrating that vaccinations are safe and effective. You will be expected to refute my position, and assume BoP for any claims you make regarding ineffectivness or danger. Open debate, four rounds, fourty-eight hours, 10-day voting period, 8k character limit but please try to be clear and concise; stay on-point.
Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)

"Pro's logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed." This is exactly your logic in the taste argument: Unicorns have glitter. (Tap water tastes better than bottled water in D.C.) Unicorns produce glitter. (The taste is from the impurities in the water) Therefore unicorns are real. (Therefore the taste argument is refuted.) Your logic is flawed.
Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)

If 60% of bottled water do not come from tap water, one must conclude that the majority of bottled water is not from taps. If bottled water is processed after being taken from the tap, it ceases to be tap water. There is no guarantee of anything. Tests do not always pick up on E. Coli. "Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water." Just because the tap water has a better taste does not mean that tap water is superior. Pro"s logic is inherently flawed. If unicorns have glitter, and if they produce glitter, that does not make them real. Therefore, this logic is flawed.
Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)

"Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli" But wait! What about the remaining from the other 60%? (40% of them are processed tap water. ) Plus, bottled water gets processed before being sold, and how do you guarantee that the processing plant is free of E. coli? "I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. " Just because the taste has a reason means that tap water is not superior to bottled water. With this logic, we can also conclude that: P1. Unicorns have glitter. P2. Unicorns produce the glitter. C. Unicorns are real. Therefore this rebuttal is false.
Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)

Yes! I am admitting to something. I effectively equated the quality of tap water to bottled water, thus negating the resolution. The argument is valid because I do not have a BoP. All I have to do is to show that tap water is NOT better than bottled water. I do not dispute their equality and I do not advocate bottled water. A water fountain is a water fountain is not a tap. A water fountain"s purpose is solely to give drinkable water (Hence many fountains have a "For drinking only" sign). A tap"s main purpose is to supply water. Period. I do not dispute that there can be harmful chemicals in bottled water. I dispute, however, that there can be no toxic chemicals in tap water. Pro uses a non-sequitur when he tries to refute my argument about human contamination. He cites cost, while I was talking about contamination. He says that bottled water is taken from tap water but is not tested for E. Coli, another non sequitur. P1. Bottled water is taken from tap water P2. Tap water is tested for E. Coli Conclusion: Bottled water is not tested for E. Coli I explain the origins of the taste, thus refuting the idea that tap water has any inherent value over that of bottled water. Thus, I have shown clearly that tap water is not necessarily better than bottled water.
Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)

Thanks for a well written response! "The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks." So now Pro is admitting to something. I am only saying that the water tanks can be dirty, but bottles can be dirty due to not being sealed properly, so this argument is invalid. "One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle." Nope. Tap water can be drunk using a water fountain, etc, plus, the containers for bottled water are poisonous. While reusable ones don't. "The compounds on which most concerns have focused are Bisphenol A (known as BPA), which is used in tough polycarbonate products and epoxy resins that line tin cans, and a group of plastic softeners called phthalates. Furthermore, a landmark report on BPA published in 2008 by the U.S. National Toxicology Program concluded that there were concerns over BPA"s effects on the brain, behavior and prostate gland development in foetuses, infants and children. It also found that because of the ratio of body weight to exposure, "the highest estimated daily intake of Bisphenol A in the general population occurs in infants and children"."[1] "E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are." Remember, bottled water companies are taking the same tap water here, except not tested for e.coli, and then selling it for thousand times more money.[2] "Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless." Let's see his refutation: "Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution." The only thing this tells is that the taste is not from the water itself. It only explains the taste, and does not refute it at all. [1]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2]http://www.onlineeducation.net...
Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)

"The problem with bottled water is: sometimes the bottle is leaky/not sealed properly, and now some of it poses the same danger as some tap water tanks." So now Pro is admitting to something. "The scientific evidence is clear that all plastic bottles leach chemicals into the water." Water itself is a chemical. In large amounts it does kill (drowning by ingestion). Tap water IS strictly regulated, but only during the period before it is piped to users. My contention stands and is admitted. This argument should thus be removed. One has to use a container to drink tap water. One has to then wash the container. Using the same amount of water as that required to make a bottle. My argument is not based on how many minerals there are, but on the amount of build-up made. One may have only a little mineral in the water, but it still would leave deposits in the pipe. Cost: I was talking about wholesale buying, not single bottle. If one were to buy a shipload of bottled water, one would almost equal the cost of buying that amount of tap water from a water company. (Depends also on the supplier, this argument is also hypothetical) The taste argument has no bearing whatsoever. Give a group of people the choice between sugar water and tap water, most would go for the sugar. It is filtered and checked for contaminants before bottling, whereas tap water is filtered, checked, and left to stagnate in an open tank. The BoP is on Pro. I make a hypothetical case. Con concedes the carbon footprint point. E. Coli is not the most dangerous substance to be found in water. Dead human are. http://indiatoday.intoday.in..., which shows that anything can get into the water tanks. Refutation was given by means of the argument that water is tasteless. Conclusion I have not given a single source in this debate. Other than four sentences past. My arguments are hypothetical, and the validity of some were admitted by Pro. Pro does not seem to understand my refutation of point 4. It was not even technical. Pro uses a source that is unreliable. It cannot be followed up on. It does not provide enough information to make a valid, informed, value judgment. This is evident in the case where the number of bottles made is not given.
Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)

I accept, since my other debates have a high possibility of forfeiture. The BoP is on you, but I will present arguments. 1. Health benefits. It is quite clear that fluorine can be added to bottled water just like chlorine is added to tap water. Proper tooth care would negate the need for additional fluorine. The assertion that E. Coli is not checked for in bottled water, which I cannot verify, but in tap water is opposed by the statistics by Pro that 40% of all bottled water uses tap water. There is the high probability of contamination of tap water tanks as opposed to bottled water, which is sealed. There is nothing to prevent contamination AFTER testing, at the period of time when it stagnates in tanks. However, bottled water is sealed right after packing. 2. Environmental effects. I do not deny the fact that it uses a large amount of oil to produce plastic bottles, but how much? Pro states, "Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year." How many bottles? He leaves out that important piece of information that allows us to compare. Tap water, on the other hand, is hard water. Hard Water deposits block pipes, and the cost to replace those pipes in an environmentally friendly manner probably outweighs that of disposing the same amount of bottles. 3. Cost Depending on where the bottle is bought and in what amount, the cost of bottle water actually can be lower than tap water, especially in locations that have no pipe. Furthermore, a container would have to be used to consume the water. Water would then be needed to clean that container. The waste in water far outweighs the benefits. 4. Taste Pure water (H2O) is tasteless. What is tasted is the chemicals within the solution. Conclusion: Bottled water : Less regulated. No such point was made. Costs more than tap. Not necessarily. Bigger carbon footprint. No such point. Not as good for you as tap. Refuted. Tastes worse than tap. Not due to the water. I have thus negated the resolution. I believe tap water to be equal to, not better than, bottled water.
Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)

I'll be arguing that tap water is better than bottled water. 1. Health benefits Tap water is fluoridated, which is good for your teeth. "Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride."[1] Fluoride is lethal in high doses,[2] but is harmless in low doses. Plus, bottled water isn"t tested for e. coli.[3] which makes it potentially dangerous. 2. Environmental impacts "Comically, the bottled water production process is fairly resource intensive. It actually takes 17 million barrels of oil to produce bottled water which is enough oil to fuel 1 million cars for a whole year. ...Even though most major cities in America have made recycling available, only 1 in 5 water bottles ever gets recycled."[3] 3.It is expensive! Bottled water is 10,000 times the cost of tap water, and 40% of bottled water is actually taken from tap water. [3] 4. It does not even taste better than tap. "D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test."[4] 5. Conclusion Bottled water : Less regulated Costs more than tap Bigger carbon footprint Not as good for you as tap Tastes worse than tap [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.onlineeducation.net... [4]D.C. residents picked tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.
Tap water (pro) vs. bottled water (con)

I will explain my logic a little to spare confusion. 1. Tap water tastes better than bottled water. 2. All water has impurities. 3. Pure water ideally is tasteless. Conclusion: Tap water has impurities which causes its taste. Applying this to unicorns. 1. Legendary history are nicer to hear than fact-based history. 1. Legends have unicorns. 3. Pure history is boring. Conclusion: Legends have unicorns which cause it to be better to hear. Thus, unicorns are not proven. Conclusion: Conduct: Pro He is far more courteous than I. Spelling: Tie There isn"t much in the way of a difference here. Arguments: Con Pro has basically dropped all arguements Sources: Pro Con provides almost no sources.
Russia vs. USA (War)

I choose to support Usa and Nato vs Russia and China. US and Nato begin by sending B2 and F22 raptors in and bombing cities , key military bases (most particularly airfields), and strongholds with most updated antiradar technology in the night. These bombings target factories and civilians to reduce productivity and manpower, and to reduce military strength most particularly airpower. Short range rocket launching sites , military camps, and tactical bombers placed in turkey, romania, estonia, latvia, and lithuania. 20% of elite soliders, tanks, and other military equipment sent to protect those bases. Many active fleets sent to the Black Sea and to Scandanaivan ports and around the coast of china. 30% of the nato's combined expeditionary force become a spearhead force into the middleeast. Large numbers of militia from local nato nations sent to reinforce the spearhead with increased numbers. Total drafts occurin all nato nations and the nations begin turning to wartime production with many facotries producing war time material. Usa controlled satelites monitor russia/chinese military movements. The usa's best computer programmers program the most elite virtual attacks possible.
Russia vs. USA (War)

In this debate, we will be arguing about the military of the US and Russia. My opponent may decide whether he wants to argue only Russia vs. US, or Russia/China vs. NATO. I will arguing for Russia's/China's victory, while my opponent will be arguing for USA's/NATO's victory. In this scenario, the USA/NATO will attack, although if my opponent wants to change this and gives good reasons, then we'll change it to where Russia/China is attacking. After identifying which one (NATO vs. Russia/China or Russia vs. USA) my opponent would like to argue, he may begin. Recapping what my opponent must do in the 1st Round: 1. Identify whether he wants to argue USA vs. Russia or Russia/China vs. NATO 2. Begin developing a battle plan (please try to be relatively specific) Recapping the rules: 1. US/NATO is attacking 2. No nuclear weapons 3. My opponent will be arguing for USA's/NATO's victory. I will answer any questions in the comments.