BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Internet is more of a source for bad than it is good

Internet: a global computer network providing a variety of information and communication facilities, Consisting of interconnected networks using standardized communication protocols. Bad= negativeGood= positiveI will leave it this open so that Con can provide what they deem positive of the InternetHumans are built with reward systems. The brain identifies how the individual gets the rewards and positions the person as so. Lets take a heroin addict. The brain would trigger a dopamine effect or incentivise the person to wait at their local stop due to the last time the individual felt that rush was due to the serious of steps he took and the brain realised standing near the local shop was the determining factor of getting that dopamine effect. Sure heroin provides a higher dose of dopamine but the sheer amount on the Internet provides a much higher consistency. This is bad because the more you are on the Internet the less your brain would motivate doing something offline. The more you lose touch with reality outside the Internet the more difficult it becomes to have motivation of doing so. Without motivation you are essentially forcing yourself to do something. It might be the right thing to do but the brain does not think that way. The Internet has increased this problem of getting a dopamine effect with little effort. Twitter As much I dislike it, It still gives a consistent supply of dopamine with little effort. When looking through things you like it wasn't difficult to do and attain something rewarding. The more you come accustomed to it the more the brain would be signalling a sort of addiction pattern to the brain. With the little effort and consistent results why would you do something difficult in hopes of a dopamine effect that is not even consistent? Weighing out options it is clear that the Internet consistently rewards and involves less effort. Just my thoughts and would like an opposing opinion. The title is a generalisation which I am okay with defending. Thank you for anyone who takes up this debate. May we both learn something new.
English (Language) comes ftom Australia.

It gives time for planning argumentation, that's why its important. ok ill start.1) The Americas were colonized before Australia was by the English. "Captain Arthur Phillip and the First Fleet, comprising 11 ships and around 1,350 people, arrived at Botany Bay between 18 and 20 January 1788. However, this area was deemed to be unsuitable for settlement and they moved north to Port Jackson on 26 January 1788, landing at Camp Cove, known as 'cadi' to the Cadigal people."this gives us the year 1788, however james town, the first English colony was founded in 1607 thus English existed before austrailia had been colonized, this makes it irrational to suggest that English comes from Austrailia. [http://australia.gov.au...][http://policy.yale.edu...]2)aboriginal Australians spoke other languages.Australia's government provides a list in the link below of aberrational languages. if they spoke English before colonization why do these languages exist? and why is english not listed? because it isnt a language rooted in australia.[http://austlang.aiatsis.gov.au...] 3)BOPRemember my opponent must provide the Burdon of Proof as AFF that states English is derived from Australia. if they cannot do this or instead they post red herrings then I win by default. Conclusion: English is not rooted in Austrailia, Vote NEG.
Video Games are more successful than Movies.

Thanks for the reply. I will admit you have presented the better side of the statistics, and will concede that movies make more money during their lifetime than video games. Violence: If we spend more time on video games than movies, wouldn't that make them more successful, as people are using the product much more than another entertainment form? Regardless here is my rebuttal in some short bullet points: *Lets say someone spends 6 hours playing a violent video game, isn't that the equivalent of someone watching 6 hours of Movies. .. some would say no because games are used within a shorter time period, however this contradicts studies that show effects of violent games/movies never "wears off". Therefore the time spent on a violent movie or game is irrelevant, because in the end, taking breaks wont stop someone from becoming violent. Hence your first reason is not a key trait "for deeper impact of video games. " *Movies make mothers, fathers and children (actors of these movies) seem potent in the murder of people. Look at Mrs. and Mr. Smith, its portrays two real life people, (and now a married couple with children i think, not too updated on gossip) killing hordes of servicemen, in slow motion action sequences that make killing look 'cool' or surreal. This is just as bad, if not worse than letting a gamer commit acts of pixel murder. Encouraging discussions: ". .. in highlighting issues and instigating debates. .. " I believe violent video games just recently instigated an argument between both of us. Also video games like call of duty instigate debates on the Media's representation of soldiers, for example. .. Although that example can be somewhat negative, movies also instigate debates that are negative, such as poverty, or the War on Terror, and because you claim that movies instigate more meaningful debates, than these debates would have a negative influence. Sources: . http://www.apa.org... . http://www.asc.upenn.edu... For round 1, Con presented ideas based only on opinion, in round 2 he has shown better statistics but forced me to debate violent video games rather than backing up his previous statements, Hence I believe i have presented the much more meaningful arguments, that show that the Video games are indeed more successful than movies.
Video Games are more successful than Movies.

It should be noted that he has posted first day sales. He has then used these sales to argue that video games are more successful than movies. Let me post some statistics: Halo2: First day sales: 2.38 million = $125million Lifetime total: 8.43million . http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com... . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... I could not find total lifetime sales in $ but we can estimate it to be around $450million(8.43/2.38*125). It is interesting to note that compared to movies, video games have huge first day sales. This can be explained: Video games build up a niche fan base; there is a rush to buy the game on the first day. There are queues on the first day. For Halo2 the first day sales are actually 25% of the total sales! ! We can see this from the charts given at gamrreview. vgchartz. com Movies on the other hand run for months (titanic=41weeks in theatres). Let us look at some hard facts: Avatar grossed $1.86 billion. Titanic grossed $1.84billion. . http://www.nytimes.com... . http://techland.time.com... Halo2 was released in 2004. Titanic was released in 1997! The average inflation rates from 1997 to 2004: 1997: 2.34% 1998:1.55% 1999: 2.19% 2000:3.38% 2001: 2.83% 2002: 1.59% 2003: 2.27% Clearly 1$ was worth more in 1997 than in 2004. This is why I believe that the earnings of Titanic are more significant than halo2/halo3. . http://inflationdata.com... Clearly, movies provide greater economic returns to the maker. This is important because this was my opponent’s base in instigating this debate. For the sake of thoroughness I post statistics of halo3: First week: 3.8million = $300million (Wikipedia) . http://en.wikipedia.org... Lifetime total: 11.3million . http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Violent video games have a greater psychological impact than violent movies. This is because we spend greater time on video games as compared to movies. In first person shooter games, a gamer is playing from the view point of the shooter. The gamer is actually carrying out the violence. These two reasons are principally responsible for deeper impact of video games. I don’t know how to post a pdf to DDO; hence I will give you a search link: Research on video game violence: . http://scholar.google.co.in... ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ I agree with my opponent, entertainment value is subjective. We cannot make a good comparative evaluation of the entertainment value. The closest we can come in evaluating the entertainment value is through units sold i. e. movie tickets vs. video game units. Movies have a larger audience (my opponent has already conceded this). ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Encouraging discussions and making a positive impact: Video games instigate debates about themselves. Movies are more successful in highlighting issues and instigating debates about a certain topic. These debates may have positive impacts in real life.
Video Games are more successful than Movies.

When we say more successful, it raises the question-at what? It could mean 1. At providing economic returns to the maker. 2. At providing entertainment 3.Providing value to the society Ill address 1. in round two because it will need a more comprehensive argument and it will be a rebuttal of my opponent’s argument. Let us look at 3. A movie/video game can provide value to the society by- 1. Encouraging discussions. Movies, unlike video games have been successful time and again in provoking debates in the society. Movies can be motivational and provide hope to those who may need it. E.g.: The Pursuit of Happyness On the other hand video games tend to have negative impacts. They can be violent and this can have psychological impacts on the minds of young gamers. While they do come with ratings, more often than not, these ratings are ignored. Playing video games can also result in addiction. I have personally been affected by this and I know what kind of impact it has on one’s life. We become distracted, we get into fights when we are not allowed to play etc. Playing video games can thus have a negative impact on our real lives. Movies employ people from various walks of life and thus provide value to various parts of the society. Movies cater to a wider audience. They can reach out to more people. The audience for video games is comparatively small. 2. There can be many ways to judge the entertainment value of a movie/video game. We can look at the value for money ratio. Now even though this is subjective, I believe that movies provide greater entertainment. Entertainment is best when it comes in a small amount. Movies typically entertain us for 60-200 minutes. This is sufficient to refresh the mind and provide entertainment in a meaningful way.
Video Games are more successful than Movies.

I believe that Video games, of the sixth(ps2, xbox) and seventh(xbox 360, wii, ps3) generations have long overtaken the success of films. My opening statement/argument will cut to the chase. In 2004 the blockbuster video game Halo 2 released and set the record..." and earned up to US$125 million in its first 24 hours on store shelves, thus out-grossing the film Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest as the highest grossing release in entertainment history."(*1)Then in 2007 Halo 3 released..."First-day sales of Halo 3 reached $170 million in the U.S., setting a record for highest gross of an entertainment product within 24 hours of its release. The performance beat the previous record setter—Halo 2—which earned $125 million within 24 hours after its launch"(*2)Then in 2009 Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 released and..."The total revenue from first day sales in the U.S. and the UK was $310 million, making Modern Warfare 2 the biggest entertainment launch in history, surpassing in revenue its predecessor, Grand Theft Auto IV, as well as items from other media types"(*3) The above three examples are a good indication that video games have well overwhelmed the success of movies such as Titanic and Avatar. Sadly last time i posted this, Con decided to leave a comment and not actually debate the issue, so I decided to renew my argument. Standard structure: R1: Opening statements & Arguments R2: Rebuttals R3: Closing arguments. (nothing new) Con will argue that video games are not more successful than movies. Sources: (*1):http://en.wikipedia.org... (*2):http://en.wikipedia.org... (*3):http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pornography should be illegalised and banned

You raise some valid points in your argument. It is a double-edged sword when it comes to teenagers maturing sexually through porn. Yes, there are, as you say, materials that depict rather aggressive and unnatural acts being performed, but you will find that most if not all teenagers who watch porn will choose porn that depicts more conventional and natural porn and are actually turned off by the more hardcore materials. As for how women are depicted in porn, I would hardly say that they are depicted as being treated as objects. Yes, they are depicted as being submissive in most cases, but not really as powerless as to say that they are mere objects. Pornography is not a major cause for problems in a relationship unless a person becomes addicted to it. There are plenty more reasons that are more common in the termination of a relationship such as lack of communication, infidelity and domestic abuse. Yes, pornography does allow people to fantasise about what they are viewing, but that doesn't mean that they will just agree with whatever they are watching and not discuss it. Sure, it isn't something you find commonly talked about at the dinner table, but people will discuss their fantasies with others if they feel open enough to. I understand what you are trying to imply with your analogy but I feel you may have missed something. In the case of a teacher telling you 1+1=2, that can be proven as a fact. Whether an individual is aroused by certain sexual acts or not will differ depending on the individual. Also, in areas of the world where free speech is encouraged, you will find that people will question what they are being taught or what they are viewing rather than just assuming that what they are viewing as fact. It has been shown that porn can make some individuals insecure about themselves, but for others, it gives them the confidence to try out new ideas, within reason. As I stated in my previous argument, we are becoming more open in society nowadays. I never said that parents will talk about porn. I said about sex in general. If a parent taboos sex, then it is more likely that when their offspring enters their teenage years, they will experiment wildly with sex, which can have some harmful consequences. Banning pornography would send society backwards as it would taboo sex once more, which could do more harm than good.
Pornography should be illegalised and banned

Even though I agree with some of what you have said that an individual matures sexually and learns about sex through Porn. But is that necessarily a good thing?? Should a teenager's introduction to sex be through watching two people please themselves in an aggressive and unnatural way. Should their introduction be through watching women swallow cum and men just literally using women like an object and whatnot. Even though not all porn material is targeted towards women most IS. Okay an individual might please themselves with porn but is that not one of the major causes for problems in relationships and breakups, divorces, etc. Does porn really allow individuals to talk openly about sex, does it not allow them to fantasise and come up with the opinion which is being shown to them by the video. If a teacher teaches a student several times that one plus one equals two he will also assume it. Does porn really make a person confident does it not make them feel insecure about themselves. Is porn something that parents would encourage or even talk about, then would it not be intimidating to individuals.
Pornography should be illegalised and banned

I don't believe pornography should be illegalised and banned. To ban pornography as a whole would not be a wise suggestion for many reasons. For example: 1: For a significant number of people, pornography is a gateway towards sexual maturity and a way to discover their desires. A lot of young people rely on pornography to satisfy their needs as an alternative to going out and putting themselves in harm's way (such as trying to find a sexual partner and being lured into a sexual predator's grasp, having unprotected sex or psychologically harming themselves by forcing themselves into uncomfortable situations due to peer pressure). 2. The increase of pornography over the years has lifted the taboo placed on talking about sex. Nowadays, we are more open about discussing sex with our peers and our children. Studies have suggested that parents who can openly discuss subjects, such as sex, with their children have stronger bonds with them. Children who have healthy family bonds have been shown to be more confident in asking about issues such as sex and therefore less likely to experiment recklessly. 3. Although a significant portion of pornographic materials are targeted towards heterosexual males, there is a growing amount of pornographic materials targeted towards other audience groups such as women and homosexual men. To say that pornography is degrading to women is a false generalisation because it does not count for ALL pornographic material. 4. There have been studies that suggest that pornography can improve a person's sexual confidence and help revitalise a couple's sex life. Many sex therapists would recommend pornography as a source of inspiration for couples to try out new experiences in the bedroom.
Pornography should be illegalised and banned

I strongly believe Porn should be illegalised and banned from Media or technological devices which are accessible to children. Nowadays, young children have free and easy access to Porn on the internet. These types of videos are inappropriate and instil these kids with negative and unacceptable beliefs and behaviours. Also, Porn is generally targeted towards women and promote the idea of women being `sexual objects` and enjoying techniques which they generally do not. Being a female myself I can claim that I certainly find `blowjobs` disgusting and I'm sure most other women do also. Porn degrades women and therefore most male boys tend to disrespect and lose their view of there fellow females and view them as objects.
3 P's in a pod.

"ANY political, philosophical or psychological" Okay, I have a philosophical resolution.... "If specific words are not defined by my opponent, I withhold the right to dictate whatever definition I wish in round 2 and my opponent must accept it." In order to prevent this, I defined every single word in the debate. Then he cannot dictate whatever definition he wishes in round two and I must accept it. http://dictionary.reference.com... Definition of "philosophical": of or pertaining to philosophy http://dictionary.reference.com... Definition of philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. It will be conduct in this debate. http://dictionary.reference.com... definition of conduct: personal behavior; way of acting; You will be con. The topic will be.... (Drum roll please...) Imabench should not have been banned. (It's philosophical because he was banned because of his bad conduct. I will be pro, arguing his conduct wasn't that bad, along with other reasons I will not reveal, because I wish not to give you an advantage. You already have too much) imabench's profile: http://www.debate.org...
Abortion

My opponent questions my reasoning for illegalizing abortion after six months, and it is solely for the sake of the health of the individual undergoing the abortion. Abortion is not murder, death of a fetus is a side effect, the main goal is to free the mother of the parasite, and if a fetus happens to die, well it must be from natural causes. My opponent also suggests a scenario in which the mother loses the baby in an accident: an accident in which the mother does not yet wish to be separated from the potentially life threatening BIOLOGICAL parasite. If my opponent is so concerned with the health of the fetus, then I can only suggest that abortions be made more safe to that fetus, with modern science, it is completely probable that a fetus could be safely removed, yet die of natural causes, that should satisfy my opponent as it would not be murder that the doctors are committing. It seems that my opponent has failed in interpreting any aspects of my opening statement, I don't argue that laws are pointless as my opponent clearly believes (if you take a look at his first rebuttal), however it is the case that outlawing abortions causes them to become more dangerous, as woman have to take risky measures such as "coat hanger" abortions. This in turn nullifies his interpretation of my "logic" when s/he claims that I believe that we should legalize murder, theft, rape, and fraud. Legalizing murder, rape, theft, and fraud does not lessen the destruction that these crimes do, however legalizing abortion does. His/her second rebuttel also shows his misunderstanding of my opening, I claim that a fetus is a BIOLOGICAL parasite. Not that it is a moral parasite or unwanted parasite. I have claimed that it is potentially harmful. The biological definition of a parasite is an organism that feeds off another and provides nothing in return. An infant can easily be taken care of by a nanny or other caretaker, also an infant also does not physically drain another organism for nutrients, like a fetus does. My opponent compares sex to smoking cigarettes, sexual intercourse has been going on since well before recorded history, suggesting people just stop it and only engage when they want a child is hilarious. My opponents third rebuttal states that I include childbirth mortality rates to suggest that everyone undergoes abortions, I include that statistic to show that there are risks of pregnancy, just as there are risks of getting in an airplane or undergoing surgery, plenty of people choose to either do these things or not do them due to their risks. Why should a pregnant woman be denied her right to alleviate risks? My opponent's final response is most likely the most comical of the four he chose to address. He claims that my logic entails the murder of the elderly, yet I ask you, if you are a lesser income couple, how much does the average person over fifty cost you personally? Why my opponent includes cost to the government boggles me. I clearly stated that adoption is more pricey to the individual putting a child up for adoption, the government's expense is completely irrelevant.