BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States

"I apologize for not seeing that the first time. However, many teenagers have jobs. When they get off work say around 10:00 PM and go home, they will most likely choose to check their myspace, facebook, beebo, etc. instead of doing their homework at night. A teens life isn't timed out perfectly." So because some teenagers have jobs that take up time. And sometimes they don't do there homework before or after work because of certain websites, we should blame the websites and shut them down from the use of everyone else? And not just simply blame the teenagers from procrastinating or not asking their work for extra time to do homework? "I would like to hope that customers who are clients would want to talk to employees in person or on the phone. Considering, that social networking sites are the perfect place to lie about everything." Not everyone has the time to meet in person. And on the phone you both have to be available at the same time. And considering that it is would be rather awkward to socially call and talk to a client just for the sake of connecting with them... it seems like it would be much easier to send them a few messages online. You can lie just as well in person and on the phone then you can on the computer. And once again you are blaming the websites for giving the people the ability to lie, rather then blaming the people for lying. "Predators won't be honest, they will go to lengths to find and to get to know you." As a teenager I have told you that I have seen a million presentations at my school about social net-working sites. They told me, as well as you, that predators will pretend to be teenagers. So if you don't know them; don't add them. Simple as that. And if you do add them it is your or your informers problem (guardians, schools, etc for not forwarning you) that you added them; not the websites.
That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States

"Now they have over three and a half hours, to exercise, socialize, work, or read a book" I apologize for not seeing that the first time. However, many teenagers have jobs. When they get off work say around 10:00 PM and go home, they will most likely choose to check their myspace, facebook, beebo, etc. instead of doing their homework at night. A teens life isn't timed out perfectly. "This would be true for some companies, but not ones where employees need a relationship with clients—where it is good for the companies." I would like to hope that customers who are clients would want to talk to employees in person or on the phone. Considering, that social networking sites are the perfect place to lie about everything. "You haven't named anyways that predators have gotten past these kinds of things." Predators and identity thieves don't necessarily need special tools to get around blocks. All it takes is a little editing of information. Of course, no sane teenager is going to add a 40 year old man they've never met. However, that attractive blonde 17 year old boy, or that innocent looking 16 year old girl will get the add probably right away. Predators won't be honest, they will go to lengths to find and to get to know you.
That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States

I have argued that social networking sites have only created an "illusion of privacy". Sites deserve blame for the widespread release of personal information. Why these security settings are so easy to get around is because strict privacy settings inhibit growth. The wider the access to information, the great the commercial value of the site. Also, that hour and 22 minutes a day adds up. While teens are online, they are slowing breaking down their own communication skills. They can bounce around to any social networking site and "lol" all they want. While slowly any relationships they have formed in the real world begin to diminish. I noticed in my opponent's speech as she stated the "schedule" of a teenager. I failed to see that she mentioned time with friends, or socializing. That one hour and 22 minutes is the only socializing that seems to be getting done. My opponent also brought up that social networking sites are good for businesses. However, according to a security company based in Australia, "if a single employee spends one hour of company time on Facebook everyday, it will cost his employer $6,200 per year. For Australia, that translate to a productivity lost of $5 billion annually. That impact in the United States would be even greater as Facebook usage in the United States is more widespread. Again, no matter what they claim, security on social networking sites are not as strong as they appear. People, strangers can still get access to your information. Young people of today are destroying social attributes, slowly losing the basis of communication. If an hour of Facebook, can really cause a company to lose that much of it's money, it would have a more negative impact on our already struggling economy. On balance, we are showing more and more of what social networking sites are doing to our community, and it is not in a positive way.
That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States

Social networking sites are not nearly as bad as my opponent entails. Because once again, we are blaming the websites and not the problem. It is very easy to make a profile become private, it can take under 20 seconds. Then you can chose who can see your profile, or set it up so a person has to enter your full name before they can veiw your profile. It is very easy to do, and as teenager I have seen a million presentations explaining why to do it and how to do it. If an adolescent is abducted because they failed to make their profile private, as easy as it is, it is that young adults and the abductors fault. Not the website. An hour and 22 minutes is the average time a person will spend on these websites a day. But, is it really all that damaging? Let's look into a teens life, they wake up at 6: 30 go to school at 7:00, get out at 2: 30 (8 hours at school) when they arrive at home they probably grab a quick snack, and do their homework. (Which would take, on average and hour and a half) at 4:00 they are done with their homework, and go check their computer for some downtime. They spend and hour and a half (The average my opponent gave me) on their computer and get off around 5:30. They then have dinner for about an hour, and finish that at 6:30. Now they have over three and a half hours, to exercise, socialize, work, or read a book; before they have to get back to get the recommended 8 hours of sleep.Hardly seems deeply negative to me. And social network sites can be good. Businesses encouraging employees to use networking technologies build relationships and closer links with colleagues and customers could help businesses rather than damage them. And they allow for diversity. I for one have two friends in Australia, one in Denmark, three in Canada, and over ten in different parts of America. I keep in touch with them through Facebook. Don't you think the youth today needs this kind of downtime, and exposure to diversity?
The earth is round

The earth is not round it is an oblate spheroid[1]. A round object is a ball while the oblate spheroid is a egg like shape. This is formed because of the earth's rotation makes the equator bulge out. This effect can be clearly seen in pictures taken from the Apollo missions or if you want to do a quick experiment on your own you can just spin quickly around in a circle with your arms loose. Your arms will swing out just like how the equator does on our planet. By the way, next time you want to rig a debate in your favor, think about the wording of your resolution a bit more. I am excited to see what you respond with. Good Luck! 1. http://www.universetoday.com...
Abortion Is Still Morally Acceptable Even If the Fetus Is A Human

I will be taking the Con side of this debate. If you accept, you will be taking the 'Pro' (in favor of) side. In this debate we are presupposing that the fetus, as so many pro-lifers assert, is indeed a human, or at least has the intrinsic value of a human. We are also assuming that all humans have a right to life and anyone who takes that right from them without due process in a court of law is morally reprehensible. The reason for this debate: Some pro-choicers feel it is necessary to first prove that a fetus isn't human, doesn't have value and is equal to a tumor or skin blemish. But they then go onto say that it should be the woman's choice if the fetus stays in her body or not. I find that once you've established the first part of your argument (that the fetus is like a tumor), the second part is irrelevant. If a fetus is equal to a tumor, no one disputes a woman's right to remove it. Ie. No one goes up in arms if a woman is trying to rid herself of cancer. In this debate we are arguing about a woman's right over her body. Should a female be forced to sustain the life of another human inside her? Should she be responsible for its life? Would it be murder if a woman simply severed the cord and removed the fetus from her womb (Simply moving it instead of stabbing, poisoning, dismembering or decapitating.) I hope this is clear enough and I look forward to our debate.
Abortion Is Still Morally Acceptable Even If the Fetus Is A Human

As Con, I will present the basic outline of my points against abortion if a fetus is human. My opponent will present his arguments for abortion being permissible in this scenario. Refutation, rebuttal and then conclusion. Here we go: My opening case will not be long, because until I hear my opponents justifications for terminating a human life, I will not be able to argue against it. The legal and moral standard is that murder is wrong. So my opponent will have to prove that aborting a human life is not murder, but something else entirely. (Self-defense, protecting one's body or property.) Self-defense: In the case of a healthy pregnancy your life is not under immediate threat and you are not in danger. So this isn't an acceptable reason. Protecting one's body: You have a right to your own body. You have a right to your own property. Both are true, but cases exist where these rights are abolished. For instance, the third amendment of the U.S. constitution states that soldiers may not live in a home without an owner's permission, but in war time he may be allowed that right by the law. Also, the law provides instances where cops may legally commandeer someone's car or vehicle to give pursuit to a criminal. The thinking behind this is that it is better to deny the civil liberty (possession of personal property) of one person than to put the rest of society in danger by allowing the fleeing criminal freedom. So this establishes that there is legal and moral precedent for depriving civil liberties. Finally, let's imagine a scenario where you have a spaceship in space and find a stowaway on board. It is your spaceship. The stowaway is consuming your food, breathing your air. But that doesn't mean you are legally or morally allowed to put the stowaway out into space. He will die. And while you aren't committing an overt violent action (you are simply removing him from your property) you will still be guilty of homicide. I would say that in the case of a pregnancy it is the same issue. But, once again, I must make it clear that until I hear my opponent's arguments I cannot address the issue. I look forward to hearing your rebuttal.
A language that everyone memorizes

First of all, in order to ensure the broadest, fairest, and most encompassing debate possible, I'd like to introduce a weighing mechanism of net benefits for all of mankind. I'll proceed with this in mind. My opponent has begun by stating a single contention, that being the assumption that a single language would be useful for understanding one another, bringing up the specific instance of emergencies. And I agree that yes, should we be living in a bubble, my opponents idyllic world view does seem useful and even superior to the one we have today. However, sadly, we don't, and consequently my opponent has overlooked ten specific realities of life that not only make the notion of a common language and its implementation not only less useful than one would think, but also detrimental to society for other, more pernicious reasons. 1. The implementation of such a language would be impossible to complete due to logistical, societal, and fiscal limitations 2. Due to the aforementioned reasons, specific regions would be unable to learn the language, and they would not be able to understand the rest of the world (ironically, exacerbating the issue that was being "fixed") 3. Due to the nature of human society, the language would quickly be bastardized by the cultures of specific areas of the world, hindering communication in the future as different dialects are formed 4. Given the mono-linguistic tendencies of many countries (such as the United States), the implementation of a common language will force the previous language to be lost and with it, much of the culture of the region 5. The roots of the language would have to come from somewhere, and that place being favored could be seen as prejudicial and unfair 6. Attempts at this very goal have been going on for a long time (see: tower of Babel fable) and none have yet succeeded 7. The different speaking styles, syntax, and accents of different regions would hinder comprehension even in a common language 8. The unique perspectives of different cultures, reflected heavily in their language, would be a terrible thing to lose 9. The transitory period in which children were learning this new language would create a barrier between them and previous generations in that they could not communicate well with them 10. Unique connotations of specific words in a language would be literally lost in translation as the whole of human experience (in terms of literature) would have to be translated into the new language For these reasons, a common language, while useful in an idealistic, short-sighted sort of way, is overshadowed by the overwhelming negative affects it would inadvertently cause. Also, for these reasons, my opponent's initial argument is flawed in that the implementation and subsequent use of this common language would be plagued by misunderstandings between cultures, limiting its usefulness.
A language that everyone memorizes

Rules1. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.2. The resolution, in which, I will be affirming and my opponent will be negating, is that there should exist a language that everyone memorizes.Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.PresentationA language that everyone has memorized would be very useful, especially in emergencies, so all people can understand each other.
Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

1) Pledge - As little kids we're taught things. A lot of things we may not understand. Do you think little kids understand most of the things they are taught? Probably not. The fact is that it is taught and it is patriotic. If you agree with it then you agree patriotism should be taught. 2) History class I'm going to split his 3 paragraphs into a, b, and c. a) History classes don't teach that towelheads flew into our towels and that all Muslims are terrorists. That's a stereotype made in the media, therefore history classes don't teach stereotypes. Status quo teaches history with an emphasis on America. They don't teach incredibly skewed history. You're trying to say patriotism skews history which is false. b) This is all about the media and has nothing to do with school. Once again the media skews things and the media has nothing to do with the resolution. c) I would be hard pressed to believe schools in Germany taught Hitler to do that. Patriotism doesn't teach you to hate the government, which Hitler did. 3) Shady - I did drop this, but it's really irrrelevant. I don't have to back every form of patriotism taught, just the fact that it should be taught. This shouldn't be taught, but there are other forms, such as the pledge that should be. 4) Prevents rebellions - Your arguments in this topic don't deal with the topic. In the cold war people rallied for their country against a common enemy. Not a rebellion. Hitler started a rebellion in Germany while not being taught patriotism. Perhaps if he was prideful in the government it wouldn't have happened. Wars are inevitable. They will happen no matter what people do. But a rebellion is more dangerous than a war because it takes place in the homeland. Countries don't attack each other because they're prideful in their nation. Iraq war - America tried to oust a dictator and end terrorism. Gaza - being fought over relligion, not patriotism. I really only have to show that one form of patriotism should be taught in order to fulfill the resolution. I did that with the pledge of allegiance. Everything else is just bonus. Patriotism stops rebellions and protects the homeland. Good luck and nice debating you dvhoose. Hopefully the Chiefs can veer from their losing ways this season!
Resolved: Patriotism should be taught to children in school.

I'll start by saying you are the man dvhoose. I love golf and the Chiefs are awesome. Ok defining patriotism. This is my definition, but if you find an actual dictionary one, please feel free to use it. Patriotism - Pride in your country. So I believe pride in ones country should be taught in schools. As it is patriotism is already taught. Every morning the pledge of allegiance is recited. History classes are taught with emphasis on America and a lot of shady events in the past are hidden. So in status quo patriotism is taught. Almost every country has had some sort of revolt to overthrow the government. The United States has yet to have that. Yes the Civil War was that, but it was more about the south seceding than taking over. Nonetheless that was before schools taught patriotism. Back then schools were still highly undeveloped. Patriotism avoids governmental revolts which means less death and more stability. Those are good things. Patriotism being taught is a good thing. That is all I'll say for this round.
Gay marriage

Hello once again. After our previous debate, and your personal attacks, I noticed your disappointment. Even though the rules were fair and just, I still feel bad for leading you to swearing, cussing and attacking others. So, I have decided to make another debate about something you seem passionate about. So here are the more fair rules given if you are to accept this debate.1: first round is acceptance2: no plagiarism3: NO PERSONAL ATTACKS4: No profanity or foul language5. no copying from other debates6. BoP, which means Burden of Proof is shared between the both of us. Failure to provide any proof will break this rule.7. No harrasement8. No complaining in the comment section after debate is over, however if the opponent begins, you have the right to fight back.9: No forfeits10: Have fun!
Gay marriage

Sorry for the late responce, and I barely have any time to write. I would just like to say your entire arguments revolves around God. You can't prove God is real, so these arguments are all irrelevant until you can prove he is real. Furthermore, having an attraction and loving someone does not go against morals or values, however not allowing them to does! Where does it say one man and woman, I ask you now. Also, it is quite likely that in the bible, God was not against homosexuality. In fact, when the bible was written, homosexuality wasn't even a word. It was only added in the bible in 1946. This means they altered specifically for no absolute reasons, meaning in the original bible homosexuality wasn't used, and so it's fair to assume that God was never against homosexuality in the first place. [1] Source:1.http://carm.org...;
Gay marriage

I would first like to say about my opponent what she said and I quote" God loves all his children unconditionally.While that is true god (the christian god)Gives us free will for god and sin.And there is no indication that just because someone loves you doesn't mean that someone won't punish you.God dearly loves all sinners like the sinners in sodom and gomora he struck lighting in the sinful city.God will still punish the human race.I'll give another example say you have a father a father that loves you.Just because that father doesn't loves you doesn't mean he can't punish you.Let me give another example say your a drug dealer your father has told you to stop many times.Your thirteen years old so he arrested you but he's your father he loves you but as a police officer he has to.my opponent said once again "This is sexist. You need not a father to teach you how to be orderly, nor do you need a mother to comfort you. If such were true, explain how the children of single parents are perfectly normal! It doesn't mater if they are male or female, they can and will do anything to raise their child. "And I would like to point out that both father and a mother play there role.But with two mothers or two fathers there is an unbalance.I would like to state that Homosexual marriage will always be an abomination to God regardless of whether a clergyman performs the ceremony. When God calls something unholy, man cannot make it holy or bless it.I would like to point out that it badly affects children saying that being bisexual or homosexual is ok.Its no it goes against morals and virtues.The world says one man one women simple as that.Can't you see the bigger picture God doen't like sin and he will punish those commiting gay marriage.Gay marriage it is not accepted by republicans nor god nor most preachers or popes.That already makes a diffrence God (the christian god) doesn't approve of it Note:All saying of god I meant the christian god Sources::http://www.tfpstudentaction.org..... and......... Why Homosexual "Marriage" is Wrong By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel Concerned Women for America
Gay marriage

Greetings my opponent. My first opening statements are Gay marriage should not be alllowed because Its will deprive the child of either a mother or a father the reason being since it's two females or two males.And this may be said already but it goes against GOD.Gay marriage is a sin god had Adam and Eve to reproduce not Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve.It is and should always be One female and one male.And reason being their should be a father because to show the child how to act orderly when out of order.And it needs a mother to comfort the child.And we are teaching our children gay marriage is good but it's not even if there is democracy there are limits to that freedom.For example we can't go out and kill someone hevans no.Just as gay marriage.And in addition,The reason the goverment hasn't banned gay marriage is there worried homosexuals and lesbians might go into a fit of rage and destroy the white house.The second reason is that non gay people may tear down the white house.Gay marriage overall is badly influencing the children today men acting like women and women acting like men. Sources:http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
iPhone vs. Android

This debate shall end in a result of purely phone quality. Also, this is an argument over an Android OS vs iOS at the core. Why? To keep it fair. I can pull many different phones out from the Android smartphone marketplace, but if my opponent wishes to be at this disadvantage, I shall argue with such. The companies have only one possible relation to the phone and their OS: maintanence. Maintenance quality is the only factor in this debate that is viable.