BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children are too restricted

Back in the 1970s, my mum and her 5 siblings would race home from school, dump their school bags in their rooms, shove some leftovers in their mouths, and run back outside to climb trees, build cubby houses, explore the bush, ride bikes, and skip on the street until " It became to dark to see, or Their mum called them back inside for dinner Fast forward to 2012........ 46% of Australian kids get 3 hours or less of active play per week Only 35% of Australian kids walk or ride their bikes to school The average Australian kid gets 7 hours and 48 minutes of screen time every day As a result Australian kids spend 63% of their free time sitting. They"re even less active on weekends than on school days. As you can see, through out the years, kids have become less and less active. Is it just technology that has caused this dramatic change in children"s lifestyles? Or are there other reasons why kids today don"t play as freely as in the past? Basically, I'm challenging people to argue that children are not too restricted in their play
9/11 conspiracy theory

I would like to start by answering Con's questions and then proceeding to attack his case. 1. A Government needs to set an example and make sure people know exactly how serious these issues are. This is exactly like using foax car crashes at high schools to explain the risk of drunk driving. This would probably be the government's scale of things. Besides, if it makes everyone much more cautious, it helps the greatest number of people, therefore, supporting a utilitarianistic ideal. 2. I don't know how they would convince these people to do it, but it was probably along the lines of explaining how patriotic this act would be. How do people convince others to go to war? It is simply because they are told that it is the best way to serve and protect their country. This would get any patriots attention. The simple fact is, if you are able to be a hero, even if you are about to die, you are still feeling a sense of pride. There is also the fact that we do not know the exact conditions of these people. These people could be the sickest of the sick, medically, and need attention. 3. I do not know why they would send a missile into the pentagon, but yet again, it seems like it would be much more for an example of the devastating effects of an unexpected missile system. By providing the citizens with much more realistic cases that false alarms and drills, the people become prepared for more of this kind of event. Thereby, setting the entire country on alert and suspicion, thereby allowing them to stop these situation from occurring. Now onto his case. There is no case by Con. All his argument is seems to be a series of questions in order to question the validity of the 9/11 conspiracy theory. This is not topical to the resolution. The resolution is simply: "9/11 conspiracy theory." One can easily assume that the Pro will defend the theory's existence, and the Con will attack it. All Con does is ask questions about the government's morals. My case will be explaining how the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory exists. C1. People believe it. Thereby, the theory is real. By definition, a theory is an idea, or, something to be proven. If people believe in this theory, it must exist as an idea. C2. We are currently debating it. If this theory did not exist we would not be debating about it, because we would not know about it. There was someone who came up with the idea and spread it. Therefore it is real. My answers to Con's questions are as in depth if not more than the questions themselves and provide reasonable examples to answer them in my favor. I would like to point out again that there is no real case for me to argue. Con does not have any claims, warrents, or data, thereby forfeiting this round entirely. Asking questions is for a cross-examination/comment section period of time, not in the first argument. For all of these reasons, please vote affirmative (Pro) in today's debate.
9/11 conspiracy theory

1. Why would our government attack its own nation causing millions of dollars in damage that we don't have the money to pay for blaming it on a terrorist who is hiding in the barren waste land of Afghanistan so we could invade Iraq for oil two years later when by that time people have already begun demanding we surrender in Afghanistan? 2. How would the government convince these people to kill themselves not with money and not with religion the two biggest motivators? 3. Why send a missile strike into the Pentagon its the national defense system a government building as if the towers wouldn't be enough they have to send a multi million dollar weapon at a multi million dollar building that they own?
9/11 conspiracy theory

1. I am sorry I meant the second round also no I do not believe you did and what ones you answered I countered. Con has no evidence the government did this making your point no higher than mine. Also I don't believe so if it could be proved than they would die also remember the government isn't just mindless monsters they are people to they have emotions and morals do you think you could kill all of those people in cold blood for no reason but to make a point? 2. We knew terrorist attacks were possible Osama bin Laden had done it before just never on such a large scale we knew they could do it our government wouldn't need to kill 4,000 people to tell us something we all ready know. That is a completely different state of mind no American in their right mind believes that killing thousands of them will help the nation. 3. The true Americans did not take the plane down for anyone who has seen anything on United 93 knows when the plane went down they were fighting the hijackers for control of the cockpit the terrorists pointed the plane at the ground while the Americans were trying to break in they didn't have control yet also the point of me saying this was to explain what the last few minutes of these peoples lives were like and to show that you claim the government that is sworn to protect them knowing what they were doing did that I believe it is wrong C1. I meant in part two C2. a. you answered nothing why would they blame it on Osama bin Laden if they were after oil Osama was in Afghanistan which has no oil? C2. b. i. I guess Pro don't understand how to answer the question. C2. b. ii. How can you be racist against geography all I said is that their would be no point in taking the land because their is no resources I said nothing about the people. C2. c. /C3. Obviously Pro does not know how to respond and is trying to make me seem dumb so he will get the vote as you have seen I have made my point Pro just can't understand.
9/11 conspiracy theory

1. But in car crashes at the high schools the principal doesn't stage a car crash and kill the drivers he just takes a already destroyed car plus 3,000 civilians died in the towers alone not to mention the hundreds of rescue workers the people in the Pentagon and the people on the planes that's a big loss for a warning. 2. Your trying to tell me a American citizen was that patriotic I don't think so many Americans hate their own country and would love to see the government topple and when people join the American military they understand they are getting the best training in the world to make sure they don't die so that helps get people to join also many people join just for the free collage. 3. I highly doubt that the government even if they were going to do something like this would destroy part of the Pentagon there for almost shutting down their military for several hours and even if they wanted to cover their tracks by targeting a government building they could have easily had the cities air defense systems shoot it down and blab about what a close call it was but thanks to the heroic actions of our men and women in arms another tragedy was stopped on the day. Now to my points Well because my opponent did not answer to many of the holes in this theory and instead just tried to prove the theory is an actual idea which I never said it wasn't I have only one thing to add and that is why would the government blame this act on a terrorist who was living in Afghanistan one of the most barren worthless countries in the world with almost no resources so that they could attack there and two years later invade Iraq for oil?
Unoccupied federal Territory should go to NaTive Americans.

Whether a person believes land can even be owned is extremely pertinent. If someone doesn't even belief land can be owned and then you say there descendants have property rights to where they lived, Then that misrepresents their fundamental thinking and is wrong. Your taking their views and shoving them aside so that more tragedy and wrong can be done. Let bygones be bygones. Native Americans already have many ways they are accorded retribution, And perhaps they should have more. However, They eviction of peaceful people from land is not the right answer. To do so would not only be hypocritical, But would be giving in to human nature and not looking for a more peaceful and bi-partisan answer.
Unoccupied federal Territory should go to NaTive Americans.

If you choose to believe I misrepresented you that is your prerogative. However, My point still stands. Native Americans don't have an inherent right to that land. Many tribes don't correspond with the majority of that government land and can't claim it all because of some long gone ancestor. Following your line of thinking I should be able to go to any piece of land any of my ancestors have ever owned and claim it.
Unoccupied federal Territory should go to NaTive Americans.

- You can give out land to people with less than 25% Cherokee blood because during Jim Crow you would have still been considered a minority and Native American by the government if you had any Native American blood. You also have groups of people who historically mixed with Native Americans, Such as run-away slaves. - I'd argue it really doesn't matter if they want the National Parks back. The betterment of humanity and the species living there is too important for that land to be privatized. No one, Not even Native Americans have a right to further destroy this world. Not to mention, I doubt many of there ancestors would prefer to see those lands ruined. Also, If Native Americans never lived on even certain federal land, Then they most certainly don't have a right to it. - Under the current government which these Natives live, They never actually had property ownership of that land, Nor did they believe that land was only theirs to keep when this government didn't exist. In fact, Though it was wrong, Many tribes ceded any right they had to that land to the U. S. Government. Finally it's just plain discrimination against anyone not of a certain percentage Native American. If a poor Hispanic family lives and farms on federal land and then is evicted, They are being discriminated against because they aren't of the right lineage.
Unoccupied federal Territory should go to NaTive Americans.

A. Sure, They could have death valley. B. I mean Native Americans who lived in areas that would become the United States. The 25% rule is there because let's face it, You're not really part of a group if you aren't at least 25% a member, And plus we can't give out land to people who are 1/16th Cherokee from the Cherokee Princess Great great great grandmother. C. Yes, It is their land, Their property, Their rules. Plus many Native American Tribes worshipped the world around them, Including Nature, And modern Native Americans usually follow a Syncretic mix of Christianity and Native American Religion. Even if they don't follow the syncretism, Many would still want to upkeep a pretty good piece of land. D. Well, Your argument is based upon a false lack of private property and hypothetical what-ifs that only work in this lack of private property.
Unoccupied federal Territory should go to NaTive Americans.

A. By definition a nomad doesn't have a homeland, So which land they occupied would vary over time. There is also federal land they never would have actually occupied, Such as Death Valley. So how would they claim a right to it? Also I'm unsure what you mean by issues. B. Isn't 25% a tad arbitrary? If two people both have Native American ancestors who lived on a piece of land how could one realistically claim their right was objectively better. Also what about Hispanic people, Many can claim to be just as Native as Native Americans in the U. S. A. C. So even if Native Americans take this land and do irrevocable damage that's fine? My point is that it serves the world community. On top of that National Park systems protect species, Species which could be exploited and even eradicated if not otherwise protected. D. Someone bought an paid for a truck, They invested time and energy into acquiring it. Native Americans walked across an ice bridge and started living in a specific location in the world. They didn't claim that the land they were on was only theirs to keep and if they did that would have been wrong. If I come upon an island that no one has ever found do I get to keep that island? I don't think so. It's a piece of dirt, I have no more of a right to it than the animals that live there. If we as humans are, However, Are to take ownership of land then once it is acquired it shouldn't be taken away simply because of the sins of your ancestor. Not to mention the legal and modern ideas of land didn't exist in their current forms back then. Also back to the matter of stealing a truck. If my great-great-great-great-great grandfather had a watch that was stolen from him and put in a museum, Do I get to claim ownership now? Isn't that a bit silly to claim it's mine? Also what of his other descendants (like I said about the White, Black, And Hispanic descendants) don't they have just as great a claim as me? What if a white family lived on land that had been unoccupied when the government acquired it, Do they still get evicted? No, Because they too are people and deserve respect and because the Natives didn't actually live there. P. S. Also you may have said unoccupied, But you said evict non-natives, So I went with that.
Unoccupied federal Territory should go to NaTive Americans.

A. They still occupied the land. And the nomads, I guess we'll just focus on fixing the reserves if they have issues. B. I mean like people with 25% ancestry since that gets you into reserves. C. It doesn't matter what they do with the land, It should belong to them. D. That's why I use unoccupied. And even if they didn't commit the acts, That doesn't mean they get to keep the land. If my dad stole a car and died, Do I get to keep it?
Unoccupied federal Territory should go to NaTive Americans.

While I feel sympathy for Native Americans, I disagree for a variety of reasons. Namely, A. Many Native Americans didn't have property rights in the same way we thing of today, Therefore it would be arbitrary to apply our modern day notion and say that they owned the land. Some Native Americans didn't even belief that you could own land. On top of this is the problem that many tribes were nomadic, That they were already given federal territory (reservations), And that not all tribes have federal territory available that corresponds to their traditional homeland (if they even had one. B. Legally speaking who would get this land? There are many White, Black, And (obviously) Hispanics who can claim Native American ancestry. What if someone who is White is already living on the land and has a Native American ancestor? Are they not fulfilling the requirements? Or are they to be arbitrarily evicted. C. I'm going to assume some of this federal land is part of the National Park system. If so, It would not be ideal to privatize it. I have not doubt many Native Americans would want to treat the land National Parks are how with respect. However, Native Americans are not a monolith and I don't doubt the privatization (which I assume is what you mean) would hurt National Parks as there wouldn't be nearly as many regulations and businesses could move in. D. Lastly, Even if someone living on this land doesn't have a Native American ancestry they are innocent of the crimes of the past and shouldn't be punished. The people living on that land are unique individuals and didn't get the option of who their ancestors were or what they did. They were born that way and shouldn't be punished for it. Furthermore, It's not their fault that tragedies have be-stricken Native Americans. While I think it would be a nice gesture to try to help Native Americans who are on hard times, It is not an obligation. The current inhabitants of that land did nothing wrong.
I believe that ideas come from three processes ,composition decomposition and logical leaping.

I am sorry that I made it so difficult to you to read my thought if you were kind enough you would not feel the need to reply to this. However let me try your spacing I believe that I do not lack imagination since these are my original thoughts they might not be fancy or widely accepted and they might not be at all original. As about the debate I was looking for a "kind and open minded soul that would not mind so much that my english is not my first language and would appreciate the fact that I am trying to share my ideas". I was clearly not thinking of you . Now since you accepted my debate I will gladly debate with you if you tone down the rudeness. Firstly do you like the spacing? Secondly do you get my point ? Thirdly you clearly disagree with me can you tell me the reason why or is that too rude to be heard in that case please skip it. Finally mister I found your anger quite irrational I also find it quiet funny .I was simply excited by the fact that I will get to converse with someone inteligent in this debate I clearly was not thinking of someone rude and smart at the same time please drop the conversation if you feel that you are not up to the challenge.
I believe that ideas come from three processes ,composition decomposition and logical leaping.

First of all, learn to grammar you faggot, that was the most pathetic excuse of a title I've ever seen. "Awww i believe that like ideas come from some processes like three maybe of maybe four ahhhh also I like the taste of my arsehole" I bet you do you sick mongoloid. Like cunt, the real processes I'm wondering is what went on in that underdeveloped cranium that spat out; "OH I SHOULD LIKE TOTALLY DO A DEBATE ABOUT THE PROCESSES OF THE BRAIN". What misfired in your minuscule speck of a nucleus that thought that, was a good idea. Are you a spud? A potato? And when I say that I don't mean mentally deficient. I mean an actual plant. Calling you mentally deficient is an insult to people with actual retardations. They are leaps and bounds ahead of you. A great man once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge" Unfortunately for you, you lack either. Good day to you sir, and I hope you die slowly and painfully. P.S i spaced my argument out for you so that you can read it. Hopefully i receive a reply within a couple of years, when you may have mastered the art of "reading english".
I believe that ideas come from three processes ,composition decomposition and logical leaping.

I believe that ideas come from three processes ,never read how ideas get created to be honest I should read that,composition decomposition and the process of logical leaping.The composition is pretty easy to understand is done by most of us we compose ideas based on statements that we have accepted as true.Decomposition on the other hand is harder because it means that we must take a general idea and make it more abstract.Finally the process of logical leaping is the most mysterious I believe we look at possibilities in the future through our imagination and present them based on the logical laws that sound correct to us.
Modern warfare 3 is better than Battlefield 3

R1: BF3 is more focused on Team Play My opponent does not explain the consistency of how much a not as skilled player ruins games. BF3 also provides options for single online play as well as team play. R2: BF3's Campaign is too slow As my opponent conceded in Round 2, and as I emphasized, BF3 is more realistic than MW3. This also extends to Campaign mode, as all of the slowness is designed to make Campaign more realistic, which makes Campaign in BF3 better than MW3. R3: MW3 is more customizable than BF3 My opponent point out that in BF3, you can't change out the individual weapon. You have to switch the whole class. What my opponent fails to point out is that you can customize the classes themselves, making it insignificant to change out the individual weapon. Conclusion Through my rebuttals, I have proved that MW3 is not superior to BF3. I hope the voters' voting reflects this. I thank my opponent for the debate, and I am thanking the voters in advance. Missing source for Round 2 [1]: . http://mp1st.com...
Modern warfare 3 is better than Battlefield 3

Battlefield 3 is more focused on team play. Therefore it only takes one idiot to f**k up your whole team. The campaign of Battlefield 3 is too slow paced. (The first level, First your in a truck, Then slowly walk off to briefing then walk over to where you need to be.) Mw3 is more customisable, where in bf3 it is class based. You have to swap your whole class and not just your weapon.
Modern warfare 3 is better than Battlefield 3

I'm not very familiar with DDO's Game Debating format, but I think you're going to need a more solid argument then 'Really Fun'. Debates aren't supposed to be won on opinions, they are to be won by facts, and facts I shall provide. Nonetheless, I thank my opponent for putting time into this debate. I shall rebut your arguments. R1: BF3 is Unbalanced My opponent does not supply any numerical proof of the average Margin of Victory of BF3 nor Modern Warfare 3 online matches. His results could be a coincidence, as he could be playing against players that are either extremely skilled or not skilled. Therefore, this point of his is null. R2: BF3 doesn't have as many game modes as MW3 I concede that BF3 doesn't have as many online game modes as MW3, which has 19 online modes[1] in total. That is a valid argument. R3: BF3 is more realistic than MW3 This isn't as much of a rebuttal as it is emphasizing this point. My opponent concedes that BF3 is more realistic than MW3. While the general genre of these games is FPS (First Person Shooters), they also qualify as RPGs (Role-Playing Games). The primary purpose of these games that aren't opinion based is realism. So, since my opponent concedes BF3 is more realistic than MW3, he also concedes that BF3 executes the primary focus of the game better than MW3 does. R4: Backing Out My opponent points out that the possibility of genuinely having to go in the middle of the game, and how you would lose all progress. The reason why losing all progress happens in BF3 is the high amount of quitting involved. My opponent will surely concede that in MW3 and BF3 that there are high amounts of quitting involved, and that's why that feature is there. R5: Co-Op options I do concede that there are more options in Co-Op in MW3 than in BF3. However, BF3 instead focuses on Campaign, which Pro will concede to playing more than Co-Op, which requires a 2nd player.