BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should be an age restriction to the people who can participate in debates.

Well, in addition to partitioning the site based on age to create a "for-kids" debate site, another option is that we could use content indicators on different debates that tell users whether mature topics or language are present on that page. This would allow younger viewers to navigate the site safely by avoiding the pages marked for mature content. Indeed, I enjoyed debating with you, and we do seem to largely agree. However, I should probably reveal that I signed up for this debate accidentally, as I originally intended to represent the "Con" side but didn't notice that you had already chosen that option. Rather than griping about it, I decided to take it up as a challenge and try debating the opposite side from the one I'd intended. So, I'm happy if I've been successful at that. :)
There should be an age restriction to the people who can participate in debates.

Rob, I am not sure about the "13" law, but I do know from my experience that every TOS I have ever read when signing up for something asks if the user is 13. This may just be the anecdotal number used by a vast majority of online communities. I am not sure. I applaud your ingenuity concerning a daughter site for younger users. I agree, there are drawbacks, but it is a step that could potentially help individuals hone their skills. It is true, that there are those who might shy away after suffering, but maybe those are the ones who ought not to be participating then? Just some food for thought. Anyway, I would ask you to disclose your "options outside of outright censorship," as I need them to be presented for me to understand whether or not they would still interfere with the site's main goal of education and knowledge-generation. For the most part, we agree, and I thank you for the time you took to debate me. Good day, Rob. Chad
There should be an age restriction to the people who can participate in debates.

Well, one obvious way that we could minimize the abuse and harsh language young children visiting this site might deal with, without resorting to censorship, would be to provide an offshoot site specifically for debates between younger parties, intended to deal with "safer" topics and to provide a more gentle, nurturing environment for new initiates to debate to practice in. Of course, one disadvantage of this would be that people might not learn as quickly if they debated only with people at around their own level; but perhaps the benefits of being less intimidating would justify this. I'm not strongly decided one way or another on this issue, but want to make it clear that there are many options available outside of outright censorship, should we choose to address it at all. I hadn't heard of any US law saying that children under 13 need parental permission to visit a Web site; do you have a source? (However, if that's so, it still doesn't eliminate the issue, since children who have parental permission can still be exposed to mature content.) To an extent, I agree that it's good for people to get embarrassed a little at times in order to learn from their mistakes and improve. However, it's a matter of degree. A little failure might encourage people to try harder, but major failures can have the opposite effect. Likewise, criticism can be useful, but overly severe criticism can be too discouraging. Additionally, people need a taste of success too in order to know what they're striving for.
There should be an age restriction to the people who can participate in debates.

Well said Rob, I am in agreement, it is just, there are some really inane comments and arguments from time to time, and I have often wanted to be the "Pro" side of this argument. However: I believe it is mandated by law in the US that under 13 requires parental consent to participate in any website / community. For this site in general, as you stated, individuals' abilities may not have formed by a certain age, and it could pose harsh consequences. However, that which does not kill you makes you stronger. So if one nine year old with somewhat advanced computing skills, albeit probably not advanced reasoning skills, can make his way on this site, and embarrass himself, may it not be motivation to hone one's rationale? Since we agree that this is educational, how can we restrict education without succumbing to ideals of censorship and control?
There should be an age restriction to the people who can participate in debates.

There should be an age restriction, but a rather low one--perhaps anyone below their teen years. Although it is true that this site is educational, we must also keep in mind that people who have yet to develop their reasoning abilities significantly would be better served simply watching debates than participating in them, since otherwise they risk being publicly humiliated and becoming discouraged from future intellectual and debate-related endeavors. We may also want to keep in mind that debaters here sometimes use harsh language, and that many of the issues debated here are perhaps too mature for young people to properly understand without parental guidance. However, perhaps forbidding an age group from debating would be excessive (not to mention unenforceable if someone simply lies about their age). A notification warning site visitors that some debates may cover topics (e.g., abortion, bestiality, etc.) in very graphic and explicit language should be sufficient. Beyond that, I agree that this site shouldn't be reserved solely for people who are already superb debaters--the most important function of this website is educational, providing practice and examples for people who are still developing their opinions and debate style.
There should be an age restriction to the people who can participate in debates.

First of all, I have wanted to start this debate for a while, but my problem was wondering which side I fell on. There are many young adults on here, <18, that are very capable of forming logical, rational arguments. With that said, there are also some who can/choose/do not do this. However, since I believe this site's main endeavor is the creation of knowledge, in order to not chance missing out on knowledge, we should not restrict anyone from debating, and that is why I'm against creating an age requirement. Not to mention, any determined individual can hide their true age on the internet anyhow. I also ask that we not disclose the names of any individual, as this site is also not about individual ridicule.
no Obamacare

For my first argument, I will analyze ObamaCare from the individuals perspective. For starters, unlike promised by Obama himself, we cannot keep our current healthcare if we choose to. Not only are we being forced into a good by the government, but the level of healthcare will go down. The wait times to see doctors will become much longer. The average family will also pay 33% more per year for their insurance, which as I stated earlier will not be as good as before. The basic argument from an individuals point of view is pretty basic, why pay more to get lass for something the government forced us to get in the first place? Add on numerous additional taxes that have been created strictly to help pay for ObamaCare, and we will be paying much more money for less return. This unpayable bill will just continue to cripple an already broken American economy, and as a citizen myself I am not sure how I will be able to afford such drastic changes. Many other people in my community are in the same boat, yet the government has forced this upon us, leaving no real other options. From an individuals point of view, ObamaCare will do nothing but harm to a country that needs to keep money in it's citizens pockets, not be taking it. Sources: http://endoftheamericandream.com... http://www.heritage.org... http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
We should be able to use calculators more than we already do in higher level mathematics

From reading the title I thought this debate would be about only in a school/college setting, I didn't know you would have involved real world examples, but nevertheless I shall post my final response. The case of using a calculator in a Race-Against-Time scenario is understandable but do not forget human error is very well possible there as well. But if was in the situation I would use the calculator as a quicker method to assist the person in danger. If they do not have access to a calculator (yes situations where a calculator malfunctions or isn't available occurs) then I would assume they hand write or solve the problem in their mind. Like being asked a question at a conference for some business meeting just to see how good their math is or some other issue. Lol @ the scenario of a company with over 500 notebooks. No I would not imagine that, but while you make points I never addressed (because the original argument was regarding to school/college mathematics not real world) they have nothing to do with the original question/argument. Yes Chevy, NASA or any other corporation do expect you to solve problems being hand written or another method in absence of a calculator when one is not available. In math if hand solving problems is a non-possible scenario then use a calculator because that's one of your only options besides cheating to pass the test for that unit (assuming you take one), but to use a calculator to solve things that can be otherwise solved by hand (assuming you do not understand the material & rely on your calculator to do the math for you) shows you're incapable of solving higher level math problems, but if you did understand the material and did it for the sake of time (like you suggested you were) then that is understandable. People with a calculator can be taught how to apply the question to the calculator in order for the device to solve it for them, they don't need to understand how it is solved by writing the problem in order to push buttons on a calculator to get the correct answer, and if they follow my example in the previous statement I made but had to explain how they got their answer and why it is correct, I'm fairly certain "my calculator's right" or some similar excuse shows they're incompetent and in a lot of cases will not receive credit for just the answer alone. An explanation for how the answer was achieved is also important because it shows whether your work is credible or not. For manufacturing products or using real world examples, calculators are great for speed and accuracy, but it's also beneficial if you know how to solve the problem without a calculator if that calculator one day is unavailable. This is my argument.
We should be able to use calculators more than we already do in higher level mathematics

My point is this, why learn how to analytically solve hundreds of problem and waste countless hours on this when in the 'real world' a majority of professions will in fact use a calculator: Say if someone's life was on the line, and some formula would save them, would you rather waste time and risk error on human ability to solve the problem by hand, or use the calculator to solve the problem correctly and efficiently. As far fetched as this may sound, it its a valid point: http://unews.utah.edu... What about an economist? Do they hand write every problem? Would you trust your $100,000 to the company that uses cutting edge computing software (which is essentially a calculator in itself) and typical calculators, or the one that has 500 notebooks filled with hand written problems? It makes no sense. Do you think that Chevy or NASA trusts its engineers to hand solve Problems? It boils down to innovation. We build these amazing devices for a reason, yet wait until the 'real world' to use them. Why wait? I understand the argument, where kids will lack the computational skills needed and will fail to fully grasp the scope of the problem. Yet if someone does not understand the problem without a calculator, they most likely will not understand the problem with one. Moreover, the ability to use the device to do the arithmetic seems quite logical does it not? One would still have to understand the problem, the parts, and what it is asking. They would not be arbitrarily punching in number into a box as you so make it sound. All the calculators would do would be saving time on the arithmetic. I take the "easy way out" in the sense of efficiency. I take the "easy way out" in the way Ford's assembly line was taking the easy way out of building the cars by hand. It is the 21st century, things have and will change, those who wish to not be a part of that change should not inhibit those that do. Therefore if it is an established rule for students to not use calculators, why? This should be treated like any other innovation, and we should use the resources that we have been given. To me this is common sense. I rest my case.
We should be able to use calculators more than we already do in higher level mathematics

I never suggested calculators would "ruin mathematics", what I was trying to type in my argument was that in assuming your position of using calculators more often, I asked how often do you use them etc. What I typed was that if people became more used to using calculators instead of solving problems, defining, simplifying etc. manually, that would not require a lot of work (depending on the complexity of the calculator being used) and the student to simply plug in the problem into the calculator to get an answer at a quicker speed than most problems when completing them by hand. What reason(s) have you to advocate for more calculator usage availability during your AP Calculus class? Are the units in that class covering material that can only be done by calculator or are you seeking to find a short-cut aka an easy way of getting a good grade without having to work as much as if you had to manually solve problems.? The only argument proposed by you for your case is that you believe calculators should be used "more frequently" and from the looks of the remainder of your statement, because of some AP test that which 70% of it is non-calculator based.
We should be able to use calculators more than we already do in higher level mathematics

I would like to apologize for being so vague, this was my second post so I was new to formatting. Please excuse my error. Let me also define my situation: I am currently enrolled in AP Calculus. I have received an A average in my other math classes as well. I include this to assert the stance that I am far from a 'slacker' and truly understand the material. Since I am in AP Calc, I have yet to take the more advanced classes reserved for yet I believe that this will still apply, but correct me if I am wrong. Now let me clarify my argument. I believe that calculators should be used more frequently than they are, which occupies about 30% of an AP test, (Observational statistic). From what I have heard from many friends I have in college, is that once there it is rare to use one at all. (Again, this cannot be proved as fact, but still does not dilute my point.) You misread my point, I do not think that we should focus less on teaching math, just change our focus from redundant analytics to more of a conceptual approach. And saying that calculators would ruin mathematics is like saying cars would ruin travel.
We should be able to use calculators more than we already do in higher level mathematics

I accept this challenge, I will begin my argument against your proposed idea. So you claim a calculator should be basically used more often than you claim it to be in math class. A calculator is a device that is programmed to be able to conduct mathematical/arithmetic calculations such as adding, multiplying, taking the square root, graphing etc. http://www.merriam-webster.com... If you were to be able to use a calculator "more than we already do in higher level mathematics" (this statement needs defining, as we can only assume how much you use a calculator in your math class as opposed to other education systems), that in many cases would remove any need for the student to actually learn the math being done and simply type the problem in the calculator possibly without even knowing how it was done. If you had to solve a problem (like the one in the link) where you had to analyze a graph in order to figure out what the equation for the graph is without knowing anything or understanding the material, you will most likely fail the assignment/test (assuming you had no calculator, the test was not multiple choice and you (if you wanted to cheat) were not able to because you were the only one being tested over the material. http://www.mi2f.com... officialkwade, what kind of math are you suggesting a calculator should be used for, specific topics or all types of math? Because math like solving linear equations or matrices for example could be done by hand as well as by calculator. An issue I have with your proposition is mainly the ambiguity of your argument title. If you mean a calculator should be allowed for everything then that would ruin the purpose of teaching mathematics to people since people could simply type it into a machine instead of actually exercising their problem solving & logical reasoning skills like what math can help you improve on. Could you elaborate on your position?
Life can arise from chemical processes and does NOT require creationism

Well im glad to be able to have a debate with someone on this topic without them always going to "the bible says, therefor it is" You state that evolution and abiogenisis can work in the view of creationism, i would like for you to perhaps provide me with some examples of this, because if it can go abiogenisis and evolution as you say, then me providing evidence for such (at least in this part) is kinda pointless. I assume from your argument above that you are referring to the origin of life happening as abiogensis predicts, and that life changing under the laws of evolution and natural selection, but somehow this was a spark of creation via a higher power? please explain a bit more on this
Life can arise from chemical processes and does NOT require creationism

I will be arguing on the side that creationism is a viable explanation for the existence of the universe and life itself. I would also like to point out that creationism does not require the restrictive thought that there are only thousands of years in existence. In fact, evolution and this abiogenesis can very well be included into the view of creationism. Since these fit in to creationism they cannot disprove it, and therefore do not progress your argument against creationism. I will go into this in the second round, but I would only like to introduce myself and my argument for now. I would like to encourage everyone who reads these arguments to keep an open mind and vote after reading all of them, and then if you have changed your perspective to my side to talk to me if you have any questions. I may not be able to answer them all, but I will try. I will attempt to make arguments for all of creationism, however, many of my arguments will be based on Christian beliefs and scripture. I will not try to convince any reader about the existence of Jesus unless they personally ask me, or my opponent does later on. I will not be repeating the typical ideas about the Bible, but do not expect me not to use it, as I will need to do so in certain situations. Also, I would like for my opponent and readers not to dismiss any arguments I make unless actually proven wrong. I do not intend to use this debate to prove my own ability or for my own pride, but instead to inform others and let them decide for themselves. With all this said, I intend to have a calm debate and would prefer that the comments remain constructive to the debate. Thank you.
Life can arise from chemical processes and does NOT require creationism

My argument is simple. Processes such as those found in organic chemistry and abiogenisis can explain how living things came from non living things without the need of intelligent design or creationism. Try and prove otherwise C: > please give valid attempts to disprove my claims instead of repeating stuff about the bible, this is a debate about life not needing a creator, not a debate whether or not Jesus exists -_- Thank you.
Insanity

Hi again! I too have been accused of trudging in the deep/floating away into the abstract in respect to arguments. Lol. But I find that such musings stabilize our stance on what we believe/how we divine the truth of our experience. I agree that we can never isolate or even be aware of all of the variables, but I think the quote only aims at those variables of which we are aware, and that we decide which require modification. Those that we don't know about are excluded, as 'apply' assumes a conscious effort, at least in my mind...lol. I also agree with your example of time and space, but would argue that it is not as relevant in quotidian matters (managers, jobs, this discussion lol, etc.) because for these actions, time and space remain constant. As to my argument...exactly! Lol I too, believe we would swiftly reach a common ground if we were to continue... We may be there now...lol...but I hope that is the desired end for all debates, to root out all the minute differences and arrive at some commonality...even if that commonality is solely that we've arrived at a better understanding of the topic and the perceptions of others. That's always my goal... Likewise, it has been a sincere pleasure...very much looking forward to future engagements...
Insanity

Thanks for taking on this topic. I have a tendency to dwell upon thoughts that many others find boorish in nature, so I appreciate your indulging me. Likewise, it is good to 'meet' you. Let me start by saying that I think you captured the argument quite well. My offense to the quote lies largely in the neglect of time as a variable, thus rendering repetitive behavior "un-insane." I agree that in the context of a laboratory experiment in which the isolation of variables has presumably been achieved, there would be a level of insanity there, or at least redundancy, to remove the disparaging label. Still, being the captious person that I am, I at least must assert my belief that no experiment is able to truly isolate all variables, time and space being among the most paramount examples. I think, if I have understood your argument correctly, you would agree with this, yet say it doesn't eliminate some practical value of the saying. In other words, we ought to be mindful of whether we are sounding a deaf horn and desist in our actions, rather than persist in vain. To this, I would agree. Certainly a mindfulness regarding our actions and their corresponding consequences is good practice. I would even go as far as to say that many behave in an "insane manner" when they fail to recognize the futility of their efforts. Overall, I think you and I would find some pretty solid common ground to rest on if we were to "persist" :) in this argument for a decent amount of time. I feel content with the conclusions that have been drawn, and thank you again for choosing to take your time in responding. I hope to see you active in future debates that I initiate. :) P.S. Please do respond to this. My concluding lines sounded somewhat of a conclusion to the debate as a whole. Not intentional.