BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
how television corrupts the youth

As for the response to "Tom and Jerry, Sponge Bob, etc." as one can see they are called cartoons for a reason. Children who watch these shows are fully aware that what is going on in the show are not real, contributing to such belief, children can see that what is going in the show are with drawings of animals and objects, i.e. a sponge. Children can tell the difference between a cartoon drawn up on a computer and real life television. Taking a cartoon and a real life television show, portraying real life effects as a broken arm, or a cartoon displaying a abnormally large bandage on a wound to complete the comedy sketch are two entirely different things to compare and contrast. In my previous argument, there was never a mention of any "government regulation", all i suggested was that the parents need to fine tune their parenting skills for the sake of their children. Simply agreeing and tweaking my words do no count as an argument.
how television corrupts the youth

" Television programs and select stations do have a damaging effect on the youth of America"And laws and rules have been enacted to move those shows to later times during the night (after the kids should be asleep anyways) so that the kids wouldnt be even close to being able to watch these TV shows so no damage is being done of the children cant even stay up late enough to watch them. "you take such shows on Comedy Central like "Tosh.0", which embellish the pain and suffering others part take in."Youve chosen one of the most extreme examples out there to make an argument on, but I will focus on the part about pain and suffering others partake in. First of all there are numerous cartoon shows that are chock full of pain and suffering yet kis find it the funniest thing in the world. Tom and Jerry is a very violent tv show but the cartoonish nature of the violence makes it fun and entertaining for children to watch without corrupting them. Spongebob has its fair share of violence (karate, jellyfish stings, etc) that anyone can see as violent but because of the cartoonish nature the violence is portrayed it has no damaging or corrupting effect on the youth of America. Secondly just because children and teens see any kind of violence on TV that certainly doesnt mean they are going to go out and try it. Teens watch TV for entertainment and for fun not for inspiration or ideas. "Even with the disclaimers pasted across the screen from start to finish there is still some accountability in showing the program"Thats not true at all. Take the Jackass movies, if someone dumb enough wants to repeat one of their stunts, gets hurt, and tries to blame the movie that at the beginning of the movie said "DONT DO THIS" then its the kids own damn fault. Tosh.0, Jackass, Beerfest, etc are all tv shows or movies that openly say not to do things you see in this movie. If teens go out and try the stuff they see anyways, its their own fault for disregarding the warnings and if they get hurt they have themselves to blame, not the TV shows or the movies. "parents need to enforce higher rules and regulations on the programs their children are available to watch."We dont live in a society where the government has to raise the kids of parents for them, that what the parents are supposed to do. Your an adult so if your kids are doing something you dont like, fix it your own way dont say that "the government must do something about this tragedy that could be avoided if i simply turned off the tv", just handle it yourself and do what your allowed to do as a parent. TV doesnt corrupt youth, its all for entertainment and the tv shows that do go a little over the top openly claim to not do any of the stuff you see on TV. If the kids do that stuff its not the TV's fault or the parents fault, its the kids fault for not having more then 10 brain cells to realize they shouldnt even be doing any of that stuff.
how television corrupts the youth

Especially in American, Television programs and select stations do have a damaging effect on the youth of America. For example you take such shows on Comedy Central like "Tosh.0", which embellish the pain and suffering others part take in. Although it is quite comical to see others faults, as an adult I do not take anything shown on the program to influence my every day life; a young teen may see a video of someone jumping off a roof top into a pool and experiment on their own and may cause serious bodily harm. Even with the disclaimers pasted across the screen from start to finish there is still some accountability in showing the program. The bigger argument is that parents need to enforce higher rules and regulations on the programs their children are available to watch.
Civilian disarmament

As much as I would like to continue this debate, I must step away. I just joined this site yesterday and this is my first uninitiated debate. I realize now, the formality of the debates posted on this website. As for the subject at hand, I cannot make an argument for civilian disarmament because I don't categorically support it. I also did not note the resources for my data, so I cannot provide it. My apologies. I hope you can reopen this debate and catch the attention of someone who is better prepared. Good luck and maybe I'll engage in another debate with you in the future, if you don't block me first! ;)
Civilian disarmament

I actually agree with you about a better control of guns, and when I say civilian I mean, a responsible and sane person that contributes with society. As far as I know there are tests to know if the person that is buying a gun is a sane person. And of course about child safety its all about a gun education, you have to get your kids use to guns and teach about the precautions he/she may take when holding a gun (like never keep your finger on the trigger or always keep your weapon down or never aim at someone, not even if it is unloaded etc.). And when I talk about having a gun I don't mean walking around with a pistol in your pocket, I mean having a gun in you house, sorry for not specifying my argument. Of course there are few cases of self defense acts, and that is because also few people walk with a weapon on the pocket, and when you say that there are more cases of murder in arguments than in self defense acts I don't get it why you brought this to our debate because so there are more in car accidents. The mass shootings could be prevented (prevent is don't even let something happen) with more parents responsibility and gun control and actually there are cases of mass shootings that were stopped by armed civilians, here are the links http://controversialtimes.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://gunwatch.blogspot.com.br... I was actually searching for someone who is totally against civil disarmament but we are having a nice debate buddy :). Could you send me the sources that were used in your argument? Thanks
Civilian disarmament

With rights come responsibilities. I don't believe in complete civilian disarmament, however we should step up the precautions with regard to sales, permits, use, child safety, etc.. Because this is a political hotbed, data is often manipulated. One undisputed truth is the relatively high ratio, approximately 1:20, of shootings related to murder, suicide, assault, and accidents, to that relating to self defense. In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime. Zero mass shootings were prevented by armed citizens. Owning a gun provides a sense of security and empowerment but the odds are consistently against a gun actually being fired as protection. As a society, we pay a much higher price by uncontrolled and unregulated gun ownership, than the alternative. I would support disarmament over uncontrolled and unregulated gun possession/ownership.
Should Americans get help beating obesity.

Your point about Meghan Trainors song is off the point of this debate but I shall address it anyway. There is a difference between being curvy and being fat. The curvature of a person"s bone structure has little to do with diet. Her song does not encourage "hating" on any type of person. It is not a song targeting a specific group but instead targeting everyone and encouraging us to love ourselves regardless of our different physical appearance.The song promotes appreciation of all types of women: curvy, fat, skinny For this comment : "people try to prove to others that being fat is really normal and people SHOULD be fat in the first place" I am pretty sure that is your opinion not a factual statement with scientific backing.
Should Americans get help beating obesity.

The current social situation that America is in is only the tip of the iceberg. 65 % of American adults suffer from obesity and 1 in 3 children are obese. The estimated annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. last year was $147 billion. Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, some of the leading causes of preventable death. Obesity is no longer just a social concern. If obesity continues to rise in the future then it will impact business productivity, the economy, housing, transport. It will change our future for the worst. However just like with issues such as smoking and child mortality persistent efforts create an impact. This epidemic is now part of the American culture .Children are growing up not knowing about healthy eating habits. Findings from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics suggest that kids ages 2-18 get most of their calories from two foods groups: Milk, Cakes/cookies/quick bread/pastry/pie. Their fat comes mainly from cheese and from crackers/popcorn/pretzels/chips. As these children grow up, this core issue subjects itself into a cycle where communities not making healthy choices, not in the sense that they don"t know about basic nutrition such as a candy bar being worse than a carrot but, in the sense of including variety, correct portion sizes and moderation. To say that obesity is an issue of willpower is no longer viable because if we look around at the food being given to our generation absolutely everything we eat (apart from fruit and vegetables contains fat and sugar). American are constantly exposed to toxin foods that are affordable (a lot more than fresh fruit and vegetables), heavily promoted, and good tasting. If people don"t know the correct methods to ensure healthy eating habits then there is no way obesity can be overcome. There is a clear disconnection between what is and what should be and the way this can changed is by providing more effect tools and creating harmony between communities and the government. Communities need to be continual informed of the advantages of a healthy lifestyle and the realistic ways they can obtain it. Kelly Ward a professor of psychology, epidemiology, and public health at Yale University suggests this: subsidize the cost of healthy foods, so they cost less; increase the cost of bad foods, so they cost more; regulate food advertising aimed at children; and develop more opportunities for people to be more physically active". In 2010 a study was released by The Trust for American Health that stated that 80% of Americans recognised that obesity was an issue. In the 5 years since, communities have been working to actively engage more people into physical activity (through programmes such as Shape Up) as well as obtain healthier eating habits. How do we do this if Americans do not get the help they need? People need to have the tools, the knowledge, the assistance and guidance to be able to make the change. Intervention must occur to break the cycle we are in. https://www.cspinet.org... http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Should Americans get help beating obesity.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a biological problem. The actual predisposition to obesity of all people is 23%. That's a lot less than what they show on TV. You also got the other thought wrong. Fat people try to prove to others that being fat is really normal and people SHOULD be fat in the first place. For example, the weird hit "All About That Bass" by Megan Trainor is filled with hate against people who AREN'T fat. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...
Should Americans get help beating obesity.

If you have seen documentaries such as FED UP then you know that it is not only just a genetic problem. Children are growing up with their staple food being highly processed, high in fat and high in sugar. What choice do they have if that is all they are being shown and fed since they open their eyes? I am not defending the fact that it is alright for them to be obese but society should and could be doing a lot more such as creating awareness about healthy eating, good food practices and exercise. People need to intervene. In the documentary FED UP a bill was trying to be passed to stop unhealthy food being served however someone prevented pizza from falling under this bill because it contained tomato sauce which to some company counted as a vegetable. How much more ridiculous can it get? Not as ridiculous as the fact that heart disease is the number one biggest killer in the world and obesity the leading cause. Companies like this are controlling what our children eat and it can be clearly seen that they don't care about what happens to them. Obesity is a disease . It is a social responsibility that we help our next generation free themselves from the cycle To your point about 'Pro-fat' what really do you mean when you say people don't want to see reality? The reality that they see is a very different reality we see which is, once again, why they need help to be able to see what is right and make the suitable change
Should Americans get help beating obesity.

As an EU citizen, I'm not really in the eye of the storm for this problem. The only source of information about the bad diet of US people I can use are documentary films such as "Fed Up" and TV programs made by people such as Jamie Oliver. All we see nowadays on TLC and other reality television programs is "people are getting fat and they need our help" and "we should help them beat this disease" but I view it as more of a natural selection that helps people with weaker ability to control their diet being reduced. The thing I fear though, is the weird "pro-fat" propaganda that says that it's natural for people to be fat, which is an entirely different subject, because some people just don't want to change and see reality and want it their way.
Avatar the Last Airbender: Zutara and Azulaang should have happened

I believe that the series should have been written differently; Aang's love interest should have ultimately been Azula (commonly phrased as Azulaang) and Katara's love interest should have ultimately been Zuko (commonly phrased as Zutara). Who will challenge me? This first round shall be my greeting round; I should post arguments in the following rounds. My opponent is free to do the same or start arguing immediately. I reserve the right to challenge any interpretation of the topic which my opponent may have to offer.
Evolution (Pro) vs Creationism (Con)

Thank you Con for that… interesting response. I found your response very, very confusing. I’m not sure what’s going on with your language, are you seriously talking in 3rd person? If so I would like to politely ask that you start writing in 1st person so that the audience and I can try to interpret what you are writing. Rebuttal: “According to Pro's narrow scope of “evolution” pertaining to only “living organisms … during the history of the earth,” and with Con's belief in the existence of a God; Con finds Pro's definition of “creationism” to be more accurate to the creation of the universe, compared to Pro's definition of “evolution.” I hate to break it to you, but evolution actually ‘pertains’ to living organisms, and is based on that idea. And about the definition of ‘creationism’ it mentions God creating the universe, but it also mentions God creating life. That is the definition of Creationism, I’m sorry if you didn’t know what creationism was until now, I apologize for that too. “Pro's definition of “evolution” is simply incomplete, it only includes the animate (“process by which different kinds of living organisms”) and left out the evolution of the inanimate. Inanimate evolution is a prerequisite for life. How could you have life without the elements of the Periodic Table? Those elements did not exist at the Big Bang, therefore they too had to evolve. Pro's definition of “evolution” also restricts it to the “history of the earth.” According the God's handwriting (the Laws of Nature), evolution is throughout the universe.” In this paragraph Con whines about the definition. If you didn’t like the definitions of the words I addressed in round one, you should have said so in round one. My opponent has not brought up any arguments so far, so I cannot address any thus far. “Humans are also confined to the “Natural Selection” process as in wars, disease, natural disasters (when the next meteorite hits the earth), etc. One may argue humans could interfere with the “Natural Selection” process. Since humanity is part of nature, the event of human interference is therefore, part of the “Natural Selection” process.” We are not battling for survival now are we? Once governments and nations were set up, we stopped living in a state of nature. If you are a citizen of a country, then you no longer live in a ‘state of nature’ Your argument was that we still live around natural laws, and we still live in nature. I’m not sure if you know anything about this subject, but we no longer live in a state of nature. Conclusion: My opponent has not brought up any real arguments and has not defeated any of my arguments. In your response please show evidence to support you position on creationism.
Evolution (Pro) vs Creationism (Con)

My opponent will be trying to prove the biblical account of creationism and I will be proving evolution. Argument: “Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved. ” If you can find fossil evidence, or any kind of evidence to prove that God created life, it would be wonderful to make that evidence visible for us. For in order to win this debate you need to prove that God created life. Now let’s focus on Evolution by Natural Selection. The idea was first proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the 19th century on the transmutation of species. But later in 1858, Charles Darwin and published a new theory that was explained in detail in On the Origin of Species (1859) by Charles Darwin. Evolution by Natural Selection is a long process that takes millions of years to see significant change. This process is disrupted in human life today since we no longer live in a state of nature. But in a state of nature, you would agree that the human with bad eyesight, or bad athletic ability would be more likely to be killed by a predator. Since these human’s do not survive as well, they are usually killed, and unable to pass on those genes. Therefore the organisms better suited to their environment live, and pass on those genes. So frogs start to have longer and longer legs, lions with sharper teeth, etc. Over millions and millions of years these slight changes add up and you notice significant changes. But since we are no longer dependent on these attributes today, evolution still happens, but it is much different since it is a different environment. The visually impaired can get glasses, and etc. Now in order to know Evolution to occur, we need to have evidence. We have a series of snapshots along this process visible with bones, the human skull changing more and more from an ape like to a human like form. This is how we know evolution to be true. Conclusion: I have made clear the process of evolution and shown significant evidence to show how evolution is true. I would expect the same from my opponent. Thank you. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... . http://www.talkorigins.org... . http://humanorigins.si.edu... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Vi_spex may be an actual panda.

Let's get into rebuttals. I'm not needed to have an argument, since the BoP is on Pro. If he fails his burden, it's assumed vi_spex isn't a panda.Rebuttal: "Well, you see, pandas have big pas, which makes it hard to type," Yeah, I guess their fathers are big (Joking. I know you meant paws).vi_spex types words, though grammar isn't his strong suit.A panda would type something like this:"aIS nlikjwe ncxfdhuiucfxkenm" (I like chicken)"Also it is proven that pandas aren't as smart as humans, which would explain why vi_spex thinks like an infant." vi_spex is more like a philosopher than an infant. Some of his sentences can be translated into something with meaning, like his ones mentioning God. Though some of them, I admit, are either wierd or downright false."For instance, in a debate about gun control, he suggests that guns can float, only something as dumb as a panda would suggest that an object with the mass of a gun could float." Can I see the debate you're reffering to? If it has meaning, probably gun control or something.Give me a quote from vi_spex, and I'll show what it's supposed to mean.(Also, his profile picture used to be an egyptian eye, and also I think he was a cat once. I don't think I can back up this statement, though)
Vi_spex may be an actual panda.

Well, you see, pandas have big pas, which makes it hard to type, which would explain why Vi talks like an infant. Also it is proven that pandas aren't as smart as humans, which would explain why vi_spex thinks like an infant. For instance, in a debate about gun control, he suggests that guns can float, only something as dumb as a panda would suggest that an object with the mass of a gun could float.
Vi_spex may be an actual panda.

Haven't done a debate in a while. I figured it would be funny do to this. By far my least relevant debate. Now, my first point is that vi_spex tends to talk like a panda, and makes just about as much sense as one. Also, it is a known fact that vi_spex grew up with pandas. I know that I will regret making this debate, but for now I don't care.
The rapversity

With all these groups forming like the Leben, Brotherhood and NHK, I decided to join the party as well. The Rapversity is a group where we can do rap battles (rap) and discuss the big topics of any kind. ("Di"versity) The name consists of a few puns because I like good humor and we are all a big city (DiverCITY) and we can take any stance on the big topics as we want however, the group has to agree on a majority stance. No need to edit profile pics, just put the text that you are in the Rapversity in your profile personality. This group may not hold but if there are 2-3 members (except me) willing to join, this group will be permanent just as long as you stay active. Advise to improve is appreciated. If you accept this debate, it would be a rap battle with this round being acceptance. I need to step my game up for the rap battle tourney going on.