BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kids should not play neopets it is a bad influence on them

Thank you. -- Rebuttals -- 1. Children sneaking to gamble I said that parents can create accounts for their children. If they do that, not all children would try to make other accounts, especially if they achieve a lot in their pre-existing accounts that they do not want to give up. Furthermore, if a child is so keen toward gambling or playing games of luck and chance, then the Internet offers much bigger problems. A game like Neopets does not do such a thing. It may have a negative category, but if a child desires gambling then he will not hesitate to find a more useful website for that. Neopets is about much else. 2. Animal Fighting Letting the imagination of children grow is a very important thing. A parent can easily tell his kids that animals must never fight but that the game is just for fun, and they will understand. When they paint pictures of some sort of a magical fight, there is nothing negative about that. They grow and learn about different things and can perhaps minimize imaginations in a way that they still have them but are able to have more realistic ones that they can apply to their own lives. "Imagination is more important than knowledge..." - Albert Einstein 3. Communication My opponent argued that children might talk to perverts who wish to lure them. Dear readers, is it really reasonable? We need to look relatively at things. Surely luck and chance games might not be good; chatting with strangers might not be good; however, Neopets is just one game and site among millions of others. If we compare it to other sites, it is not bad at all. In fact, it can be a very good start for using the Internet. Learning how to deal with different content, not talk to all kind of people, avoid spreading personal information, all of this is good in helping a child with learning how to use the Internet properly. 4. Popularity As for games of luck and chance being most popular, perhaps it is because children feel ease with them. What is the problem? The Internet is enormous. They can go to Miniclip[1] and find another game if they want. Neopets, however, can teach them how to sort out the different content and stick to what fits with your own rules. Children may not want to play Stock Market, but it remains there. If the parents encourage their children to play this rather than games of luck and chance, then maybe they will start doing so. -- Closing comment -- So far, my opponent has not offered a strong argument against Neopets. He has yet to prove that the negative sides outweigh the positive ones. I thank him and look forward to the last debating round in our debate. -- References -- [1] http://www.miniclip.com...
Kids should not play neopets it is a bad influence on them

FYI: Your youtube link don't work Rebuttal 1 Luck and Chance Kids create accounts without their parents knowing. Why not lie and say your 13 to get access to all features of the game? Parents are not going to monitor their kids 24/7. I started playing neopets in 3rd grade, I had 4 accounts and I was 18 years old on all those accounts, to gain access to all the games available. Parents generally do not look over everything their kids are doing online, that's why so many prepubescent boys have seen a porn photo or movie before age 18. [1] The link here is to prove that parent intervention is not always there kids do not get monitored on their internet access ability. There is nothing preventing them from lying about their age to play these gambling games at a chance to win more neopoints. 2.Animal Fighting There is no blood but the description of violence is there. If you write down the pet bites, slashes, or attacks with sword that still instills the image of a violent image in the kids head. If kids can visualize image of animal fighting on the internet and since neopets treats it as just a game, kids will just add the two together instead of neopets lets have our dogs fight. Kids learn to raise money and spend it on weapons and defense weapons instead of feeding their pets because there is multiple channels to acquire free food on the site. ( soup kitchen, free omeletes, free jello, etc) What are all these kids going to spend their neopoints on? definitely not on taking care of their pets by buying them food. Also they are kids they cannot distinguish reality from fiction, they believe a big fat guy with flying reindeer delivers presents to them in a single night... I doubt they have a good sense on a grasp of what is possible. My opponent points out the communication aspects of this game. I do not know who my child is playing with on these sites. They might not even be kids they could be 40 year old perverts trying to lure little children. This can have a very negative effect. I don't want my child associating with strangers I don't know the potential risk factors are too high considering it is the internet. The Stock Market on the site is not a popular game at all, in fact on neopets most popular games section it includes 4 luck and chance games.( 2 slot machine games, Wheel of Excitement, and coconut shy) Kids play the slot machines, Wheel of fortune, and a rigged carnival game more than they do the stock market. Why? because they are just kids... Kids do not want to play the stock market its not a real game. These educational games can be used but kids with their low attention spans will not play it. Proven by the popularity rate. [2] Again these contests are not popular, kids are playing more of the luck and chance games than the games that actually have to be thought about. http://www.sync-blog.com... http://www.neopets.com...
Kids should not play neopets it is a bad influence on them

-- Rebuttals -- 1. Luck and chance I am personally against gambling, but this game does not require you to use any game categories that include gambling. In fact, you have to be at least 13 years old in order to play games of luck and chance.[1] If you are a parent, you can set up an account for your child and have some sort of parental control. This way, you do not have to worry about what your child is playing.[2] If he is under 13, he will not even be able to play games of luck and chance. 2. Animal fight My opponent claimed that Neopets promotes animal violence. I see no such thing at all. It is true that the virtual pets can be in battles, but there is nothing really "violent" over it. There is no bloodand you hardly get to see some sort of a physical fight. It is unrealistic. Furthermore, as can be seen on this video,[3] there is nothing that can make a child willing to make real animals fight. These animals are to unrealistic and they even have some sort of weapons, like Ice Club. If a real pet can use that one I would sincerely want my opponent to tell me which one it is. -- Arguments -- As I said earlier, this game has educative material. For instance, people can communicate with each other since it is a massive multiplayer game. This can improve their communication skills, social interest, and basic language skills. This affects people in a very good way. Moreover, there is "stock market."[4][5] This can help children learn about the principles of the market, even mathematics, which is indeed positive. Maybe some of the features of "stock market" is not positive for everyone, the basic principle of it and its similarity to the real market is intriguing. There are also contests, such as contests about writing a good story to Neopets. This can encourage competitiveness between children which is creative and positive. When children compete they challenge their own minds and set new standards for themselves that make them willing to always follow with the rest, i.e. other competitors. There are also puzzle games, which are good for the brain. They improve mental skills in solving tasks quicker and more efficiently, and can improve the overall quality of problem solving. I thank my opponent for not forfeiting. -- References -- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.neopets.com... [3] YouTube --> /watch?v=sb_GJZAbHBU [4] http://www.neopets.com... [5] http://strategywiki.org...
Kids should not play neopets it is a bad influence on them

Why is neopets bad for kids? 1. They have a category called "luck and chance" under its games I do not think kids should be learning the concepts of gambing at such an early age, since this site is for all ages. There are games from poker, to dice, scratchcards, Keno, craps, slot machines, lottery tickets and you can even bet on a poogle at the race track... called "poogle racing". I'm sorry I do not care how educational it is, my child is sooner or later going to connect poogle racing with horse racing, scratchcards with real life scratchcards, lotto tickets with superlotto tickets. Poker, dice, craps, and keno are all games that are gambling games in real life. 2. Neopets promote animal violence. First of all neopets you get to raise an virtual pet on your own, you can feed it, play with it, make it a little home, and even put it in a "battledome"? In neopets kids can even stock up on weapons by using virtual money (neopoints) to throw their virtual pet into a arena for fighting purposes. Dog fighting and cock fighting anyone? It is also teaching the child to stock up on weapons... Neopets has 2 features that are horrible for any child to learn animal violence/abuse and gambling that should defeat any educational merit it has. "Get your Neopet in fighting condition!" http://www.neopets.com... http://www.neopets.com...
Kids should not play neopets it is a bad influence on them

Unluckily, my opponent provided no definition of "Neopets. " I will do that for both of us, then. Definition of Neopets: a virtual pet community game. See source #1 for more information please. My opponent holds the view that the virtual pet community game called "Neopets" can teach children bad habits that they should not be learning, and therefore the should not play the game. My opinion differs. I shall present arguments that support my view on this game, which I find being very educative in certain ways for children. -- Arguments -- o Educational material If this game was, in fact, some sort of a horror game, then I would not have a moral objection to the statement that my opponent made. However, this game has nothing to do with scary content, rather it has a variety of games that are educative in one way or another. I must say that I want to ask my opponent to present his case first because it would be more educative with some arguments and refutations. I wish to know whether or not he wants to participate in this debate further. I will in the next rounds elaborate on educational material. I look forward to a response from my opponent. I thank him in advance. -- References -- [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S.

To recap: Marriage is a fundamental right of American citizens guaranteed by both the morals set by the Declaration of Independence and the regulations of the Constitution. Leaving it up to the states is both unethical and morally reprehensible, especially as many are passing laws that are banning homosexual marriages. From ethical, logical, and legal standpoints, all facts indicate that gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S. When we examine the arguments my opponent and I brought up, it is clear that it is the federal government's duty to uphold our citizen's privileges and our duty to support the equality of all people- gay or straight, young or old, male or female.
Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S.

Why don't I first begin by refuting some of my opponent's statements while simultaneously clarifying my own. First, the claim that "the states all had marriage laws of one kind or another." If you examine America's history, time and time again the federal government has interfered with these so-called "marriage laws." Just go back to the 60s where inter-racial marriages were banned. Every state had different opinions, but we stepped in and eventually made overarching laws around them. In Supreme Court case Loving V. Virginia, [1,2] the Supreme Court banned the prohibition of inter-racial marriages and made a federal law stating such. Clearly the government has interfered, and can interfere, with laws concerning marriage. And while my answer above was fairly broad, here is a refutation to the arguments concerning the Constitution. And at first glance, it may seem the federal government is overstepping their bounds when it comes to marriage. But upon closer examination, it will be apparent that we should, in fact, legalize gay marriage once and for all. The fourteenth amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".... and the definition of marriage is "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife". Now, this means marriage, in itself, is a privilege. And when states are denying their citizens that privilege? Well, then it's time for the federal government to step in. We are abusing the privileges of good American citizens by fundamentally denying them the rights they deserve. This needs to stop. And before moving on, I'd like to point out that just because "such disparities have existed at all times in between", does not mean we should continue to refuse the granting of basic privileges to American citizens. In fact, this is a logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitatem (appeal to tradition) and cannot be considered a viable argument. [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [2] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S.

Gay marriage should be left to the states. Indeed, all marriage should be left to the states. Search the U.S. Constitution from start to finish, and you will find no reference whatsoever to marriage. You will, however, find the 10th Amendment, which reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Marriage is not commerce, war, or taxation. It is unrelated to money, the post office, the patent system, or any of the other enumerated powers of the federal government. Its regulation is neither necessary nor proper in pursuit of those powers. At the drafting of the Constitution, the states all had marriage laws of one kind or another. There were wide disparities among them, both then and now, and such disparities have existed at all times in between. The founders had no desire to settle such matters, and they did not wish a future Congress to do so either. The Constitution they wrote left only two choices: Either allow the states to regulate marriage (with, perhaps, federal consequences to follow)"or else return marriage to the people, to individuals, families, churches, and communities. Either approach would be consistent with the Constitution.
Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S.

When we examine this issue, it's vital to look at it from both an ethical and legal point of view. Only after examining them will we discover it is morally justified and logically proven to legalize gay marriage in the U.S. My value for this debate is EQUALITY. First, why don't we begin with the legal viewpoint. To do this, we need only to look at our Declaration of Independence in which it was claimed "all men [and now we know, women] are created equal" and then later elaborates on how we all have the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Clearly the created equally part is fairly self-explanatory. We are all equal, so one's homosexual/heterosexual tendencies are irrelevant to whatever marriage one wants to have. Next is the life, liberty, and happiness part. When one is denied marriage to their partner, this is denying them the pursuit of happiness they deserve. It is unjustified and legally reprehensible to prohibit a marriage. Time and time again in the past, we have partaken in closed-minded, bigoted tendencies only to repeal said tendencies later on when the truth revealed itself. Just look at our ban prohibiting inter-racial marriages. And today, I am assuming we all are under the same opinion that banning it is not morally correct. We can compare the inter-racial marriage issue to the one we have now concerning gay marriage. Furthermore, in American is the separation of church and state. This means that no religion may be brought into political affairs, which is exactly what gay marriage has become. Therefore any and all arguments concerning religion is irrelevant. But next, let's move on to the ethical standpoint. Homosexuals marrying each other will not lead to a third world war. It will not lead to a disease that will spread across America. It will not lead to bestiality. Nor will affect YOU in any way, shape or form. Because when it comes down to it, if you don't like gay marriage, then don't get gay married. That's it. See, trying to ban gay marriage is akin you being on a diet and telling others not to eat cake because it offends you. Which, we all know, is preposterous. Clearly, under both legal and ethical standpoints, gay marriage ought to be legalized in all of America. Not only is it a right that ought to be guaranteed, but there are no logical contentions on why it ought to be banned.
Donald Trump is better than Hillary Clinton

1. Donald Trump is anti-war- Hillary Clinton never advocated for America single-handedly "bombing the hell out of ISIS," and Hillary Clinton never supported sending US troops to Syria, unlike Donald Trump. Donald Trump in 2004 never advocated against the Iraq War- he was building his reality TV show "The Apprentice" instead of thinking about America's security apparatus- as a businessman, he was thinking alike to his other CEO friends, viewing Iraq as a financial interest instead of a security risk. Folks, we cannot repeat what we have done in Iraq in Syria by sending ground troops. Everyone knows this except Donald Trump. My opponent clearly does not understand what people like Roger Stone are for- he's paid to support Donald Trump's reputation in front of the public, while everyone knows that Donald Trump is not the savior for America. Hillary Clinton's support of diplomatic, passive-aggressive treaties to defeat ISIS will be the most effective way possible. My opponent agrees that anti-war policies are now somewhat "archaic," meaning that our pro-war past policies have made America more enemies than friends. Hillary Clinton has learned that our "bombing campaigns" and ground troops can't work in the Middle East. Donald Trump doesn't learn. 2. Donald Trump's economic policies- At least the TPP and NAFTA trade agreements are designed to willingly share capital between America and several other Asian giants, while Donald Trump wants to end these agreements, slap on giant tariffs- to help America become "great"- and less competitive. Not to mention that Trump is unclear on his tax code too. More trade agreements = more economic competition. More tariffs = higher inflation, unemployment, and less capital. It leads to a less advantaged middle-class, which Hillary Clinton is trying to oppose. A more advantaged middle class combined with increasing free trade allows for more economic competitiveness, the key to American success and not American isolation.
Donald Trump is better than Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump is the anti war canddate. According to people close to Mr. Trump such as Roger Stone, Trump was against the Iraq war, something Clinton was for. Clinton has supported aggressive military policies in policing the world and actions such as bombing Kosovo. The Clinton Foundation has scandal after scandal, with too many coincidences of donations then presidential pardons, or selling assets and information. Hillary Clinton supports the TPP and NAFTA, which has cost America over 1 million jobs. Trump advocates for a simpler tax code with lower taxes on the poor and middle classes, while Hillary wants to raise taxes on everyone similar to Bernie. Hillary Clinton recieves tens of millions o dollars from Wall Street while telling Americans she is going to fight Wall Street. Hillary Clinton's foreign policy includes: more sanctions on Russia, more conflicts in the Middle East, and having no border protection policy. Her economic policy will increase taxes on the middle class, while excluding her Wall Street donors from any laws similar to how the Obamas are exempt from The Affordable Care Act(A collassal failure Hillary supports.) On more military issues, Clinton lied about Benghazi to Congress, and about classified emails to Congress, while Trump has raised money for veterans and helped 200 marines get home to Florida from North Carolina after logistics errors by using his private jet. Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, arrogant, and pathological liar who is uniquely unqualified for office.
Donald Trump is better than Hillary Clinton

1. Foreign policy- Donald Trump seems to advocate a hyper aggressive stance for defending America's standing in the world- an appealing image to many. Yet we must ask ourselves: Does Donald Trump have the experience necessary to defend our interests in the world? For world politics is not simply a chapter in The Art of the Deal. Donald Trump may claim himself to be a master negotiator- maybe only to Vladimir Putin. How will he galvanize support in a world where his policies are criticized and his reputation horrible? As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton approached foreign policy in a way completely separate from the bigotry and ignorance of the US' standing in the world that Donald Trump possesses. 2. Economic competition and policies- What Donald Trump significantly ignores is the shrinking American middle class, essentially the backbone of America. It is sure that Hillary Clinton will not repeat Obama's flawed policies geared towards his conception of the "middle class"- the impoverished, low-income communities who don't generate economic capital. To prevent outsourcing of American jobs and bring our jobs back home, we must strengthen families and make big business suitable for the common American, instead of encouraging big business' layoff of thousands of workers. By ensuring that the common American has equal opportunity to thrive, Hillary Clinton solves for America's income inequality in a way that Obama couldn't. 3. Donald Trump as the "anti-donor" candidate- Donald Trump is a master salesman. In fact, he views whatever he does in his political career like a game of Monopoly. The simple point is this- a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for the upper-class, top 1% in America. Donald Trump's associates are the CEOs of modern day- the corrupt real estate moguls that threaten America's common people. Considering that Donald Trump was supportive of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump's campaign is simply a method to gain publicity for his business.
Donald Trump is better than Hillary Clinton

Donald J. Trump would be the best candidate for America in the election cycle of 2016. Mr. Trump is the only main party candidate to support American interests over the interests of foreign countries. This nationalism has historically made America project more power, and helps American citizens affected by jobs being moved out of country due to high taxes created by Democrats and Republicans. The mainline politicians of the West are often corrupt, and do whatever their donors tell them to do. Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill have been shown to use political power for profits, and have shown contempt for Congress. Donald Trump has had a consitent view on economics for the past 30 years, is anti intervention, and seeks to lower taxes on America's poor. Hillary Clinton seeks to raise taxes, remove the second amendment, and pander to her Goldman Sachs donors. NAFTA has and the TPP will destroy the american economy even further, and these are supported by Hillary Clinton and establishment politicians, with only Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump opposing handing over our trade liberties. Donald Trump is the only hope for the American economy, and for national sovereignty.