BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minecraft is the best game

I would like to start by saying that I agree with my opponent to a certain extent. Minecraft does expand creativity for kids and is fun and easy to play, but that doesn't exactly make it the best game. Like just because it has creatity, and it is educatinal doesn't make it automatically the best. There are tons of games like that, all over. Sure most of them aren't for kids but I mean what does this game teach kids that they can't learn by (oh I don't know) going outside? Not being on a screen 24/7? Maybe if children stopped looking at screens all the time, we wouldn't depend on them to teach kids survival skills and creativity. And the other thing about the "creativity" is that it takes forever to build something normally, and kids are just no patient enough for that. If they're a tween, they're either going to make pixelized genitals or just play call of duty and be homophobic for no reason. If they're a teenager or an adult, they already know about creativity and such. Sure they could be creative mode, but that would get boring after a while. For me, I don't really have a personal favorite video game. In my opinions something like tetris is immediate entertainment and actually helps develop hand eye co-ordination. And about the survival skills thing, when is a kid who depends on a video game to learn survival skills going to need survival skills?Most games in the stealth game genre allow for a player to come up with entire ways of comepleting an objective. The best example of this is Hitman: Blood Money, which although it's violent it has an incredible amount of ways to go about beating a level, and the more you replay a level, the better critical thinking will be for you. You'll come up with new and creative ways to get something done. And before you argue kids would just use the run & gun technique, that technique is actually really difficult, and the game makes a point of saying you should be stealthy. And it's not like kids would play Hitman Blood Money either.Also, it's not like the big reason kids play video games is to learn creativity.
Minecraft is the best game

Minecraft can teach children things and lets children expand creativity. It helps with knowledge about the real world and shows lots of nice people and is good for your brain. You have freedom to do things Expand your own creativity Multiplayer action Battling steps Awards mojang staff have With the new xbox version minecraft is suitable to play. A child friendly game that has appropriate content Minecraft is a game recommended by many game critizers and has more awards then staff so it is able to be one of the best games with more creativity and teaches more things like - clay to rock/brick - Survival instincts - Creative mode - Crafting ideas -And much more
That we should put an end to child beauty pageants

THIS DEBATE IS BEING RESTARTED WITH THE SAME SETTINGS AND JUDGES BECAUSE MY OPPONENT FORFEITED AND THE SYSTEM FAILED TO UPDATE Short debate. 2000 chars per round. This debate uses judge voting and the nominated judges are Rosalie, tejretics, Romanii, whiteflame and lannan13. Child beauty pageants: Beauty pageant comps for children. Particularly famous in US but also present in other countries like UK and Australia. Children as young as 4 to 16 years of age participate, mostly girls. Please only accept this debate if you intend on seeing it through. DO NOT FORFEIT ROUNDS. First round is acceptance. Looking forward to a good debate.
That we should put an end to child beauty pageants

Fair enough, sorry about that. Child actors, models etc do not just go in to look pretty. Actors are expected to play their characters, and this includes action, sad or comedic sequences, not just to look 'glamorous'. Models, on the other hand, are specifically selected based on favourable physical appearance so that they can best showcase the clothing and attire. Nobody goes to a runway show to look at how pretty the models are. So, no, I do not agree at all when you similarize child beauty pageants with acting and modelling. Young girls dressing up nicely for birthdays are also what I feel, outside the scope of this debate. Of course, it is human nature to want to look your best at a function. EVEN IF these activities are unhealthy, then yes, I DO AGREE that we should also look to manage these events/industries. But this debate is talking about beauty pageants. My opponent then mentions Barbie, Bratz etc. Excellent. Yes, I DO AGREE that we should also scrutinise these toys and the messages they put across to children. So yeah, basically my opponent AGREED with my definition of what is unhealthy, and then brought up other industries and activities without ever denying or refuting the harm of BEAUTY PAGEANTS which is the topic of this debate. My opponent's final argument was about how boys also participate in pageants and do not have to use makeup. That is because in real life, men are not expected or at least not pressured to use makeup. SO OF COURSE, male beauty pageants do not use makeup. Nor are they expected to look muscular because at that age, the testosterones have not yet kicked in. You will, however, no doubt see, especially older boy beauty pageants where they will start to dress in sleeveless shirts, and use fake hair, spray tans, mascara etc. The goal is the same. It is all to make children appear as nice as possible, and at such a young age, I repeat that this is extremely harmful to their thoughts and perception of life and the world.
That we should put an end to child beauty pageants

Hello, I didn't refute any of your points because in the second round, you say your opening points first. Then in the third round, you refute the opening points of your opponent. Thanks lannan13 for the tip! My opponent said in the first round that child beauty pageants are "aimed at beautifying their physical appearances". He forgot to mention that child actors, child play actors and child models also do the same thing in which they would wear makeup and glamorous outfits. Also, young girls dress up glamorously at their birthday parties or their friends'. They also dress up glamorously on festivals. If you ban child beauty pageants, you should also ban the mentioned professions and events. Again, my opponent said that beauty pageants "instill into children that their physical looks and beautifying themselves". So do the child actors, child play actors, child models and young birthday girls. He also mentioned that child beauty pageants promote materialism but failed to mention the factors that promote materialism like Barbie, Bratz, etc. My opponent mentioned that businesses and designers use children as to promote their designs and ideas. He failed to include child actors, models and play actors that businesses and designers also use. My opponent also failed to mention that child beauty pageants are not limited to young girls only. There are also young boys who compete in those pageants that are very different than the girls' where almost no makeup is visible, no catwalking, etc. Does that mean beauty pageants for girls be banned but not for boys?
That we should put an end to child beauty pageants

My opponent's first argument is that contestants can potentially alleviate financial difficulties. Any competition or sport can potentially help to ease financial difficulty IF you win. We would think that if we are going to encourage a girl to help her family, we would push them to work harder on their studies or on any number of different activities which do not instil the aforementioned negative values. Such activities include debating, skiing, rowing, mountain climbing, cycling etc. etc. Any of these activities while boosting character development can also be a potential source of income when you have attained a certain level of mastery. Since you never rebutted my arguments in the first round, how can you claim that pageants are the "safest environment" for a daughter to earn money? Your second argument was that, child beauty pageants can help the community. Library reconstruction was put forth as an example. Similar to my first rebuttal, any of the other activities can help you gain the community's trust and backing to assist your school, town, family etc. In fact, you would think that joining an activity with the purpose to win money and to help the school would be a serious source of added pressure on young contestants to do anything to win. They are being used as an investment or a commodity to be 'sold' for material benefit of their family and school. My opponent's last argument was that pageants require talent. I think I have already touched on this in the previous round. Kindly reread it. "If she was an amateur piano player, she will have to improve her piano playing to get the top prizes." Not sure what my opponent is trying to say with this sentence. No doubt every worthwhile dream that an individual has requires some degree of sweat and toil to become a reality. I never disputed that pageants have to work hard to achieve success. That was never a point of contention I brought up. Over to my opponent.
That we should put an end to child beauty pageants

Hello, thanks for the debate opportunity. Here are the reasons why child beauty pageants should not be ended. 1. Young girls can help their parents ease the family's financial burden. According to UC Davis Poverty Research, about 46.7 million Americans are living in poverty, as of 2014 (1). It is also said that 80% of Americans are in debt (2). Many child beauty pageants have cash as the ultimate prize and they are pretty high, like in Sunburst, a model search pageant, where $3,000,000 are awarded annually (3). Obviously, a sane parent will not put her young daughter in a sweatshop but a child beauty pageant is one of the top choices where the parent would think will be the safest environment for her young daughter to earn money to help support the family. 2. Child beauty pageants can help the community. Though certain child beauty pageants are notorious for giving off huge pressure into children, not all child beauty pageants have abhorrent intentions. There are young children who are aware of their community's problems and decide to help out by signing up in a beauty pageant. For example, a young girl who is aware her low-funded school needed the library to be reconstructed might consider signing up in a child beauty pageant. If she wins, there might be sponsors willing to pay for the library reconstruction or the girl can use her prize money for school donation. 3. Child beauty pageants can help the girl hone her skills. Many child beauty pageants require the talent portion. No talent, no chance of winning. If the girl signs up in a child beauty pageant, it will be a chance for her to showcase her talent in which she will devote her time trying to hone it. If she was an amateur piano player, she will have to improve her piano playing to get the top prizes. SOURCES: (1) http://poverty.ucdavis.edu... (2) http://blog.credit.com... (3) http://www.pageantinfo.com...
That we should put an end to child beauty pageants

We (We, meaning the Instigator) believe beauty pageant comps are extremely harmful to the development of young minds. The nature of this competition requires children to partake in certain activities aimed at 'beautifying' their physical appearance to receive more points on a scorecard. These include but are not limited to wearing makeup (A LOT of makeup), putting on fake hair and eyelashes, wearing incredibly sophisticated adult dresses and shoes, and posing and strutting on catwalks; frequently incorporating an elegant 'sway'. We believe that all these instil into children that their physical looks and beautifying themselves just to look good FOR OTHERS are worthy goals to pursue. We should be encouraging them to be comfortable in their own skin and to sharpen their minds rather than focusing on looks. There is nothing wrong with teaching children to want to look good. But we believe 'looking good' can come from a more thorough sense of personal hygiene and etiquette instead of excessive sparkles and jewellery. We are inclined to believe this also promotes materialism and the fear that others will not like you if you don't have enough possessions. If my opponent argues that pageants also have to take part in humanitarian acts and acts of charity, as well as to be quick-tongued in answering impromptu questions etc, to me, these are overshadowed by the highlight of such beauty pageants, which like it or not, are a lot of catwalks and modelling. These children are being used by businesses and designers as just another way of promoting their designs and ideas. If the intention really is to promote chivalry and altruism, a wide range of other more 'to-the-point' activities are more than available. Child beauty pagents are also well-known to incorporate certain ideas including having a child use fake breasts to 'improve' the posture, eating disorders and smoking fake cig
Abortion should be illegal

Well… Now I see I only have 10 minutes to make my argument. I feel cheated but I will do my best. About the statement… "The fact that a potential life has ended before given a chance remains evidence enough for most people to understand why a person should never have a choice of whether a baby lives or dies." --Potential should never make a decision. A mother should have a choice when it comes to her life or the child's. What about the mother's potential? --Secondly, you try to make many emotional arguments about pictures and babies screaming. This is all emotional and objective. What about cattle that scream as you prepare them for the slaughter house. Should we not make hamburgers either? That is a bad argument. About the statement "God chooses many couples to be available for adopting these children by way of impotence by one or both people." God doesn't exist. Plus the many other arguments you make about God. Prove there is a God and you can win the debate. You have stated about mother's being in distress. Well, prove it. My friend had an abortion and never complains about it. Your source is as good as mine. Abortion is good. It decreases the population leading to less resource depletion. Secondly, you mentioned government resources that help with advice to pre abortions… that is a waste of my tax dollar. Also you blame the woman for when she is raped because she is not empowered or equipped enough. What about the man who rapped her… he is at fault not the woman. Sorry for the short response but my opponent only allowed me 10 minutes to respond, in my opinion to cheat. I should have looked at that ahead of time. Don't vote with emotion but by fact and the lack of solid sources provided by the pro and his lack of integrity to allow me adequate time to make an argument.
There is No Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism

Tarzan Hello Again! I am glad to see you are still vigorous in your anti-biblical stance. I am also glad you still do not know the Bible. This one was too easy to pass up. You have already lost by conceding Gensis 5 and by stating if it stands on its own then there is no biblical basis. It does not stand on its own. I linked a website that counts for you. Genesis 11 fills the gap from Noah's children to Abraham. When you keep reading the Bible you get more information. Abraham to Moses is then counted, then The Judges are counted, then the Kings are counted to our now known world history. Genesis 5 Adam – Noah Gensis 11 Noah – Abraham Abraham to Moses is then counted Moses to Judges then Judges to Kings then Historical timelines. The website details it out. If you had gone to a "Christian Propoganda" website you might have avoided this error. http://www.abiblestudy.com... For this debate you have lost due to the overwhelming biblical evidence in ALL OF ITS GENEOLOGIES. Genesis 5 does not stand on its own, Genesis 11 fills the gap of time you are so concerned with. All other possible "apparent" gaps are also detailed out by this website. If you are able to count then you can see that man has been around roughly since 4000 B.C. (According to the Bible) Though you can offer a slight discrepancy based on the calendar you use, there is clear Biblical evidence. (This website uses the Jewish Calendar) So yes YEC is completely supported by the Bible. As long as the resolution rests on the Bible you have lost this one. I have to ask though, where did you think all of those "Christian looneys" came up with the estimated date?
There is No Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism

The proposition on offer is that there is no Biblical Support for Young Earth Creationism (YEC). This means that there are no verses YEC supporters can use to justify the date of the creation of the earth. For the purposes of debate, the approximate creation date range will be between 6000-10000 years ago. Multiple accounts give the creation date as circa 4000 BCE: "In 1650, Archbishop Ussher published the Ussher chronology, a chronology dating the creation to the night preceding October 23 4004 BC. Ussher's proposed date of 4004 BC differed little from other Biblically-based estimates, such as those of Bede (3952 BC), Ussher's near-contemporary, Scaliger (3949 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Sir Isaac Newton (c. 4000 BC), or John Lightfoot (3929 BC) (http://en.wikipedia.org...)." However, when one looks in the Bible for any sort of verse supporting this notion, one finds nothing. There are a couple places in the Bible that YEC supporters use to back up this ridiculous claim: 1) Genesis 5 2) Matthew 1 / Luke 3 I'll address each of these passages and show why this does not support a YEC philosophy... 1) Genesis 5 The various verses in Genesis 5 are used to support YEC by adding up the dates between when people have their progeny. This yields a sum of 1626 years - the sum of the length of time before so-and-so begot so-and-so. However, this set of verses cannot stand on its own without the addition of other genealogies in the Bible. They only cover the time between the birth of Adam and the birth of Noah's Children - in other words - up to the great flood. As there is no information about the ages of the persons in the other genealogies, Genesis 5 fails on its own. 2) Matthew 1 This, along with Luke 3 provides a genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. However, there is no information regarding how old each person is. Supposing a (VERY generous) generational period of 45 years, there would only be 75 generations between Jesus and Adam, thus accounting for some 3375 years - in other words, more than 600 years short of the 4000 years needed to fall within the 6000-10000 year range. However, the addition of the lengthened life spans of many of the early Biblical characters would bump this back into the realm of coherence, except that Noah is not in the list in Luke... If the world was destroyed and all but Noah, his sons, and their wives were aboard, Noah would necessarily have to be in the genealogy. ************************ Just a brief opener. There is no Biblical evidence to support Young Earth Creationism... AFFIRMED.
The government should ban smoking in public spaces

Rebuttals Putting your family in harms way Now, your argument here states that if I were to smoke in my house because smoking in public areas is banned, I would influence my family. However, in public areas (With tons of people, in general), you can influence much more people, and cause much more deaths. Goes against their free will Now, your argument here states that I would be going against peoples' free will if I were to ban smoking in public areas. Then, why do we have laws in the first place? No murdering? That is because if that law wasn't there, this country would be a massacre place. In other words, they are trying to maintain control over us and to prevent harm amongst other people, whilst not being their fault. Alcohol, etc. does not influence people UNLESS you invited them for a try. While you inhale smoke, you can taste it. Same with the public, they can smell/taste it, and give it a try (Due to taste/smell), and suddenly they become addicted. BUT, for the purpose of socializing with friends that are already addicted (Or just like) to smoke, that's definitely acceptable. I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
The government should ban smoking in public spaces

Your argument dictates that people should not be allowed to smoke in public areas. Then, should people have to smoke in their own homes or in certain smoking rooms? Wouldn't that also increase the chance of second hand smoking? For example, suppose a typical family man is forced to smoke in his own house due to the ban of smoking in public areas. By doing so, he is potentially harming his own family due to second hand smoking. I would argue that by allowing people to smoke outdoors, they would not have to expose anyone in the house or building to the effects of second hand smoke. As well, completely banning smoking would be a restriction of free rights. People may take up smoking due to various reasons (eg. stress management) and although you may not necessarily agree with their decision to smoke, who are we to dictate what other people can or cannot do? If we were to ban smoking, perhaps we should ban other substances too then, such as alcohol. Impaired driving is also a contributor to thousands of deaths a year, so should we also place a ban on alcohol consumption? People usually smoke or drink as a form of relaxation and for the purpose of socializing (eg. drinking buddies), so we should not be too hasty in passing judgements in dictating what people ought or ought not to do.
The government should ban smoking in public spaces

I, pro, will gain position to ban smoking in public areas. Presentations I will first begin by showing you this definition of smoking: "Smoking is a practice in which a substance, most commonly tobacco, is burned and the smoke is tasted or inhaled. This is primarily practised as a route of administration for recreational drug use, as combustion releases the active substances in drugs such as nicotine and makes them available for absorption through the lungs. It can also be done as a part of rituals, to induce trances and spiritual enlightenment" According to what it states in this wikipedia entry, I say that it shouldn't be legal to smoke because it influences other people in the area to smoke, because some non influential people convince others to smoke, which will have a great effect on their lives. Since it does cause lung damage, I think the government should ban it because it will cause many deaths from people encourging others. To conclude this session, Smoking should be banned because it kills people, and it's spreading from one person to another beause of the non ifluential ways of their effect on other people. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
We Should Not Ban Assault Weapons or High Capacity Magazines (2)

For the rest of this debate, both I am going to assume: 1. There is NO second amendment 2. We do not need assault weapons or high capacity magazines to defend ourselves against potential tyrannical governments. 3. We should not ban all guns (my opponent may challenge me to this debate later if they wish) Given these assumptions, I believe I can still argue against banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Definitions: Assault Weapons: weapons as defined by senator Feinstein utilizing the one-feature test. The actual definition can be found in the following link. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov... High Capacity Magazines: For the purposes of this debate, any magazine larger than 10 rounds. Rules: Please Stay Civil NO PLAGIARISM Must cite sources for any statistics used. Both parties must adhere to the assumptions posted above. I argue that banning assault weapons would not prevent future mass shootings and violates the property rights of American gun owners. Additionally, the potential benefits or harms of banning high capacity magazines is unknown, likely to be small, and again violates the property rights of gun owners.