BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house would open a kindergarten in geriatric hospitals

Thanks for Pro to make this debateDefinitions1. Geriatric: an old person2. Hospital: a place where sick or injured people are given care or treatment and where children are often born3. kindergarten: a school or class for very young childrenArguments1. Why are they in hospitals then? If there is a kindergarten in the hospital, and elders teaching, why are they in the hospital? They might have a certain disease that makes them in the hospital. If they have a bad problem, we should not let them go near young children who might get their disease too. Also there are many other places where elders are, and also you can ask the teachers like in the ages of 25-40, they have a lot of experience also, not just elders. 2. No Help Also children tend to not listen because they are young and it is boring. They tend to act to experience it themselves because they can forget it.ConclusionWe should not have them in the hospitals because the elders are in the hospital for a reason and also it is no help for the children.
This house would open a kindergarten in geriatric hospitals

These two groups can affect each other mutually. The elderly has a lot of stories to tell the children. By listening to the stories the elderly offers, little children can indirectly experience 'life'. In this process, the children can attain wisdom and insight in which will help them later in their school life, and as they advance into the society. Besides the children's academical benefits from learning, they also obtain useful knowledge that can help them in their social life.
Hollywood movies should not rely on graphics…but more on acting

Graphics can put on a hell of a show. Special effects are a big part of any action movie and most action movies requires very little acting at all just a really good fight scene and a lot of explosions. Most people just want to skip the entire story line and move to the big action scenes in a movie. Directors like Michael Bay understands that and just makes movies to please the audience not the critics. If people are still paying to watch a movie just for the effects, they obviously enjoy it.
Hollywood movies should not rely on graphics…but more on acting

in response to loser boi:But that's the thing though. If you really think about it, Hollywood is just a bigger version of full blown capitalism. Most of the directors usually just hog the money that they make from the films and never regret if people had to see a badly made film that relied on graphics to much. But hell, if that is the case, at least one thing they can do is rely on acting and the story to put on a hell of a show and make it feel like wasting money on that certain film worth it.
Hollywood movies should not rely on graphics…but more on acting

Why shouldn't movies rely on graphics? it saves time writing a long script, and saves time and money hiring top notch actors and actresses. Graphics are enjoyable to watch and its been proven in many movies. Transformers revenge of the fallen widely criticized for a lack of script and bad acting by critics and even the actors themselves but still racked in over $800,000,000 in the box offices. This shows people just don't care about the acting as long as it's enjoyable to watch
Videos Like Bish Lasagna Should Be Taken Down

Pointing out that somebody is Indian or that their Nation's team is bad at a certain E sport is not necessarily a racist phrase unless they go further and say that they are bad at games because of their ethnicity. Pewdiepie did not do this. So I don't think there was hate speech here. You say it's unacceptable, But you only base this on your personal feelings, Not empirical facts. By your standard, We could ban any kind of speech. I could say that I would be raged if people say the word envelope and then say it's unacceptable. I could say that people who say "woke" offend me, Therefore it's unacceptable. I could do this all day until there is no more words left and talking is illegal. A slightly funny example is that I could say that all prepositions offend me and therefore that should be censored. So now everyone has to talk like cave people. I'm just entertaining myself now. You haven't really made any convincing argument that I should find his speech objectionable. I mean internet censorship is at an all time high so obviously is must not be that bad. Your floor.
Videos Like Bish Lasagna Should Be Taken Down

First I must blame you for making have to watch that video. . . ". I'm over it. so my first problem with your argument is that I did not see any explicit hate speech in the song. I might be wrong, Correct me if I'm just missing a key term. I'm not sure if the statement you posted constitutes hate speech. One thing about hate speech is it requires a certain intent from the person. Without this intent, They're just words. Now racial slurs tend to be different in this way because the restrictive definition of the words allows us to draw the hate from content. But making a pejorative statement with the word India in it isn't necessarily hate speech. If he was referencing the online gaming skills of India and India did, In fact, Have poor standings on online leaderboards, This would not then be hate speech, It would be a factual statement. Even more interesting still, Is that even if this was a fact, His intent could still make it hate speech. So the burning question is: What was his intent? It appears to me that he is in a youtuber war with someone. I don't know if the statement you said was directed at this guy or not, You'll have to fill me in on that. But it seems to me that it was meant to be more of a not so clever personal attack on his opponent. Often times, The people in these youtube wars are doing it on purpose for views, So for all we know, There is no ill will here what so ever. The next problem is, My opponent guessed it, Freedom of speech. Look. I detest hate speech as much as the next guy. But freedom of speech is a delicate thing. The intent of the speech matters and we have to make sure that we don't lose more than we gain when we do restrict it. I've always thought that a temporary ban list on hot button terms was a good idea. That way they could be regulated instead of being applied by "offense" how Canada does it. One a side note, Worst way to handle free speech EVER. To quote an old axiom. "I don't agree with what you say, But I'll fight to the death for your right to say" -- Some Person. 17? -19? Lol I do have a contention with one of your points. You said: "But it only extends to a point where you don't hurt other people" I agree with this in the case of physical harm or mental abuse. I do not agree with it simply if it only offends you. That is not good enough, You could be offended by the color pink because it's a sexist color. Should we make pink Illegal? I mean, I'd do it just to see how many people freak out. But people who are not jerks like me wouldn't do that. Lol. Your floor.
Videos Like Bish Lasagna Should Be Taken Down

Hello, Opponent! Firstly, I will argue that the videos titled Bit*h Lasagna (there are 3) are highly insulting to people who, Say, Hail from India. The song itself says "You India You Lose". This kind of attack on a person's nationality is unsolicited. I'd like to say "You Sweden You Sh*t" and just wait for the reaction from PewDiePie. It wouldn't be sweet. The same thing can be expected from loads of Indians. The song contains too many sexual innuendos for an audience under 18, "bobs" and "vegana" being cases in point. Let's set PewDiePie aside. Hate content against other nationalities or races is overflowing on YouTube. This can be expanded to include swearing and so-called "roasts" where people are made to feel even worse. Freedom of speech will be argued by my honorable opponent, No doubt, But it only extends to a point where you don't hurt other people.
Religious Schools Should Not Receive Government Funding

Some educational voucher programs allow students to use that funding to attend religiously based schools. It is my contention that this violates the Establishment clause and should be prohibited. This is a brief three round debate so round one will be acceptance and brief rebuttal, round 2 for arguments and round 3 for summary. I place no restrictions on my opponent regarding rating but do insist on courtesy and sticking to the subject.
Religious Schools Should Not Receive Government Funding

Religious schools are not the issue, but the use of taxpayer dollars going to them. As long as a church or religious organization wishes to run a school and meet the regulatory requirements, I have no issue with it. I would not try to deprive anyone of the right to educate as they see fit. My point is that there is no justification for either Federal or State tax money to finance such independent education systems in any way. Thank you for your prompt and courteous replies.
Religious Schools Should Not Receive Government Funding

While I sympathize with those parents, having had to subsidize a lot of education for my own children, I cannot agree. Any education besides the public system is a privilege, not a right, and that is particularly true of religious or church run schools. It is the choice of parents to eschew the public schools for whatever reason and place their children in alternate institutions of learning but it is not right to ask every other parent or property owner who pays taxes to underwrite that choice. If the school is church run, it will promote that church's ideology, thus violating the Establishment clause if the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. For these reasons I say again that church and religious schools should receive no kind of government funding, to include vouchers.
Businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason

Businesses should have the right to discriminate, the market will help them out of busniess if what they do actually does effect a 'whole community', after all, they will lose all of those potential customers and they will also lose the several people who will not shop based off of principle. You have every right not to shop at that store. The governments job is not to push the 'moral good', after all- we all have different morals. The job of the government is to allow people to do what they want, to be free to make whatever they want of themselves so long as they follow by a simple doctrine 'your right to swing your fists stop where my face begins'
Businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason

I never said that it is the governments job to 'right the wrongs' of the nation. The only reason the government has the right to have a public busniess (like AmTrak) hold a policy of non-discrimination is because taxpayers pay into this busniess, thus busniess decisions are the taxpayers. When a company is owned by the taxpayers, they should decide how it is run- the taxpayers overwhelmingly decided to not allow discrimination. This is not so for private businesses. Private businesses are funded by private money, the money of the busniess owner. It is their property, and thusly they have every right to do whatever they want with their property, including deny others entry or service on that property. I agree that it would hurt busniess, in fact, it would hurt busniess so much that the vast majority of businesses would not do it. The market would in fact, though the invisible hand, help destroy businesses who engaged in such discriminatory practices. We are not the United Socialist States of America (yet), nor were we ever intended to be. For Liberty to thrive, rights, however unpopular should thrive as well. The government has no right to take away any persons right unless their right interferes with someone else's right. In the US, we have property. This property is not owned by the community, it is owned by individuals. If an individual does not want anybody on his property, for whatever reason, he has that absolute right. To take that away would be against liberty, and against the constitution.
Businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason

Alright DuncoNihilum, you ready for this? Okay, now I just want to lead back to your original argument. You stated that "any busniess, so long as it receives no government funding, has the right to deny service or entry to anyone they please." And, since you agreed with me in my last speech that this practice is immoral, yet you make an exception for government funded businesses, we must see that the government tries to act morally. Thus, since it is the government's job to right the wrongs in the nation, the government must take away a businesses right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. My next on that is that your examples are affecting only one, two or, at most, three people, yet they are still morally incorrect. When businesses refuse people on the basis of discrimination, it affects the entire community. Since managers or people of power would be the ones to refuse service, it would hurt the business, the person rejected and any other person with the same outward appearance. If the action of a single individual can affect an entire community, it is a problem that must be corrected and who better than the government fix it.
Businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason

Hey littlelacroix! Thanks for taking up this debate. I'm sorry that you took up this debate simply because you believe it to be immoral because I agree with you. I consider this to be very immoral, however, the proposition is "Businesses have the RIGHT to deny service to anyone for any reason". Rights do not necessarily line up with morals. While I might have the 'right' to say that homosexuals will burn in hell and that they don't deserve to be in my home, that is not necessarily the moral option. I have the perfect right to choose to cheat on my wife if I choose to do so, however immoral that may be. I have every right to cheat on my girlfriend, however immoral that may be. This debate proposes that they have the right to do so, however immoral you might find it to be.
Businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason

First off, I want to say good luck in this debate. Secondly, I only took on this debate as I find it immoral. Just because a person looks like a robber, doesn't mean they are a robber. If a buffet offers an all you can eat deal, a fat person shouldn't be allowed? Just because a person is of Middle Eastern decent, means that we shouldn't allow them to fly on an airplane? Discrimination is an immoral practice. Ever since elementary school we have been taught not to "judge a book by it's cover." When a business nowadays rejects service, it's because they're rowdy or for other reasons. Thus it is a viable reason for protecting their business. There are more reasons why businesses should not do this but I will continue with my opponent's next argument.
Atheist have more morality than Christians.

Unfortunately this is my first debate on this site and attempted a edit but alas I was too late. Definition of Morality: principle and beliefs that indicate good and bad behaviors. First I would say true morality is not divinely inspired it is subject to social workings of individuals within a society. Why is it that the far majority of tribal societies(hunter gatherers) existed in relative peace for thousands of years without a christian influence. This is not to say they did not at times fight, kill, or steal from each other, yet they still existed in an area without wiping out one culture for another. Can a people coexist without the Christian gods guidance of morality? Apparently so Australian Aborigines existed a together for tens of thousands of years with out such an influence and by comparison to other aboriginal groups they were quite peaceful and accepting. It should be noted the first recorded genocide is found in the bible: Deuteronomy 20:17 "Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you." Does my opponent accept this as moral because a God commanded it to be so. Yet for it to be moral by god one must first believe there is a God and to an observer outside of this doctrine would they see this act as moral? Morality is not divinely inspired, it is innate to all social creatures on this planet. Does a wolf kill one of it's own pack when game is hard to find. This is a moral act not based on just survival, so therefore morality is a natural state with no need for God to inspire it.
Pesci-Vegetarianism is beneficial

Once again, yes you can get nutrition but you do not get the extra two years of life, according to the German Cancer Research Center, Loma Linda University, and many other studies. The oldest woman ever was a vegetarian, and even if people smoke and are vegetarians they generally have a longer life expectancy. They are also less likely to have cancer and osteoporosis. Unless you have an IQ so low that you need a tape to tell you to breath, having these reduced risks and longevity of life would be seen as healthy due to the fact that you restrict your meat intake. Why is it so hard to comprehend? I would like to remind voters that even though these benefits are achieved through other forms of vegetarianism, pesci-vegetarianism is still beneficial. I would also like to remind you that there would not be billions of people jobless. We created diversified economies for this very reason. The fish industry would need more workers, as would the soy industry. Yes, jobs in the meat industry will disappear, but with new demands comes new jobs. And please remember, I never said that everyone should go vegetarian and not everyone will, but the people who do it (the number of vegetarians have increased to 10 times the number that they used to be), will benefit the environment, and if it keeps on growing at this rate, the economy will be able to go into a smooth transition. About elitism once more, people could make the same argument about gyms and other health centers. So maybe it is a type of elitism. Does it have a negative impact? Some people could say that because people are getting healthy that TV industries are at steak, which they are. But we do not see this as something that it necessarily harmful. That will not cause a WWIII, and neither will pesci-vegetarianism, as my opponent points out, so why won't people at least have respect for the idea. Besides, once again going back to the environment, will the environment wait for the economy to be perfect? No, which is why sometimes we have to realize that the earth itself is more important than money. My opponent claims that economic impacts outweigh environmental impacts. Which is more important I ask you? The air you breath or the green in your wallet? The earth you live on or your job that depends on the earth give us a healthy environment. Well, with methane and nitrus oxide emitted from the animals that you eat every day make the economy worsen because the earth worsens. When the health of the earth is at steak, we simply cannot continue to ignore it and let it get worse as we become selfish and decide to not help. CON says that this way of eating is horrible overall, but really it is part of a solution to our problems, because we live longer, we help the earth, we take away jobs but give new ones. It helps the air in your lungs and the earth that you see every day.
Pesci-Vegetarianism is beneficial

Though iron, zinc, and calcium are achieved in similar ways to that of a meat eater, the fact that you limit your meat lowers cholesterol, prevents heart disease, and helps you can live two years longer, and most people would see that as beneficial to a person's health. Yes an omnivore with no dietary restrictions can eat all of these, but it is through limiting meat that the benefit is received. Once again, whole chains of proteins can be found in eggs, milk, yogurt, beans, brown rice, nuts, and fish. Also, I am not promoting elitism. If the FDA says that limiting your calorie intake is better than eating 10,000 calories a day, they are not trying to create an elitism. They are merely trying to advise people as to what is healthy. As for your segregation comment, there are quite a few vegetarians of all dominions of vegetarians (vegan, vegetarian, pesci-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian) and they are not creating any real conflict that is causing violence. Maybe they want to prevent the violence to animals in a peaceful way, just by choosing to not have meat. I used to eat lots of meat and had several vegetarian friends, and they did not try to start WWIII over it. Very well, say global warming isn't happening. The methane and other harmful gases are polluting the environment and damaging our lungs and putting greenhouse gases into the air that also damage your skin and can possibly lower your life expectancy. But judging by the fact that the 11 hottest years since recording global temperatures have occurred in the past 13 years, I'd say that there's a decent chance that it could be happening. Though cows have been around for millions and millions of years, they have not been in the large numbers that we see them in today, making larger amounts of the toxic gases within them. As for jobs, what about when cars came around? People who were in the carriage business began to lose their jobs. But if many people adopted a form of vegetarianism, manpower for the demands of soy products, vegetables, fruits, and grains would be on the rise, and people who are meat farmers could find their way into these jobs. If you look at my opening argument, I do not want to force people. I just want them to see that there are benefits. Yes, like with any other idea there are cons, but I'm sure that humanity can solve this much more easily than others. I know that people will still eat meat, but vegetarians are on the rise, and will decrease the demand for meat. The other perspective is a bit unrealistic. It is a possibility, but chances are that there will still be a meat industry. But if people love animals, then they will see vegetarianism as a benefit, because their goal it to help the animals. So it is beneficial to health, the environment, it will not hurt the meat industry too much, and it saves animals such as cows, pigs (which are smarter than dogs), calfs, chickens, and ducks.