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

Social networking has a POSITIVE impact in the United States. Without it, -our economy would not be where it is today -communication opportunities would be smaller -socially we would be closed to trying new things Going on to refute my opponent.. - although social networking sites are just a tool, without them.. businesses would not be able to assemble as they wish advertisements would not be able to appeal to consumers the general public would be unable to communicate as efficiently - because social networking sites promote people who have brains and can think independently, it can still have a direct effect Although the person has the impact, they would be unable to achieve what they planned to if the tool was not present As a result, PRO should recieve the winning vote
Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.

Thanks for this debate and good luck: DEFINITIONS: -Impact -From: Merriam-Webster (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) -"To have a direct effect or impact on. " Resolutional Analysis: The burden of proof lies with pro. -Within this debate, it is pro's job to prove that there is some sort of positive impact on the United States. Therefore, if I prove negative effect or neutral effect, I ought to win. -Therefore, my claim is simple: That social networking websites have a NEUTRAL impact on the United States. A. Social Networking Sites are simply a tool. - Since Social Networking Sites are generally meant for friends meeting up with each other and sharing information, you will see that these sites are simply a tool for people to use. Thus, this debate asks the question, does the tool have an impact? And the answer is no. You see, it is the PEOPLE THAT USE THE TOOL that determines what kind of impact exists. A person could use these sites well and nothing bad could happen, OR someone could anonymously abuse someone to the point of suicide on these same sites. For example: A hammer is a tool. A person could use the hammer to build a house. But a person could also use the same hammer to murder someone. Do either of these actions determine the impact of the tool? No… Therefore, it is the PEOPLE that determine whether it will impact anyone positively or negatively. B. Definition (of impact) places no impact on Social Networking Sites. -How can something have a ‘direct effect' on something when it doesn't have a brain? It doesn't think. And it therefore can't positively or negatively impact anything. In the end of this debate, ask yourself… Does a hammer build a house or does a person build a house with a hammer? Does a hammer kill someone, or does a person kill a person with a hammer? Does a gun kill someone, or does someone kill a person with a gun? Does a gun protect a family from a robber, or does someone protect a family from a robber with a gun? Since the answer to all of these is the latter of the two, you will see that it is the PERSON that has the impact, not the tool.
Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web Sites have a positive impact on the United States.

Social Networks are basically things like: FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, TAG, ZANGA... - They are good because they increase communication opportunities Nowadays, just calling and text messaging is not enough. There has to be some sort of quick communication occurring online, and that is what social networking does. - They stimulate our economy Social networking websites are able to advertise to their users based on what it looks like they or their friends would like. That comes in handy because it saves consumers money and increases production opportunities. - They allow idividuals to expand their social horizons Normally, becuase we are human, we would want to stick with our "cliques" or circle of friends. Social networking sites reccomend individuals that you are not "freinds" with yet in an effort to increase your friends.
Mark Levin truly is the Great one

Rebuttal"my opponent argues that I said he is one of greatest."This is obviously false. I never claimed that Pro said Mark Levin is one of the greatest. I claimed Pro said exactly what he said, "Mark Levin truly is the Great one." "I merely took the quote from fox news contributor Sean Hannity."So you don't really think Levin is the great one? What was the point of this debate then?"Mark Levin is a radio broadcaster, Attorney, and Author of many books including: " Ameritopia, Liberty and tyranny, and Men in Black: How the supreme court is destroying America. Mr. Levin is the president of landmark legal Foundation, a very prestigious law firm. But his biggest role in government was being a head adviser to the Reagan administration. He is now a nationally syndicated radio host of his conservative talk show, and uses it to teach the American people what is right and what is wrong with our federal government. I urge you to listen to one of his shows to really get a view for yourself. to me Mark Levin is one of the smartest talk show hosts and political analyzers in modern history."All this is nice but, out of all the people in our history, it isn't enough to prove Levin is the great one. Closing StatementsPro never responded to any of my arguments but instead chose to argue against something I obviously didn't say. Pro didn't offer any real argument proving Levin is the great one and even backtracked on that idea when he said he just took the quote from Hannity.
Mark Levin truly is the Great one

my opponent argues that I said he is one of greatest. I merely took the quote from fox news contributor Sean Hannity. Now on to my case, Mark Levin is a radio broadcaster, Attorney, and Author of many books including: " Ameritopia, Liberty and tyranny, and Men in Black: How the supreme court is destroying America. Mr. Levin is the president of landmark legal Foundation, a very prestigious law firm. But his biggest role in government was being a head adviser to the Reagan administration. He is now a nationally syndicated radio host of his conservative talk show, and uses it to teach the American people what is right and what is wrong with our federal government. I urge you to listen to one of his shows to really get a view for yourself. to me Mark Levin is one of the smartest talk show hosts and political analyzers in modern history. with that being said I urge you to vote pro. www.marklevinshow.com
Mark Levin truly is the Great one

Pro, do your sources like mine.Resolved: Mark Levin truly is the great one.Burden of Proof: ProOpening Statement"The" is used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class;[1] therefore, the resolution implies that out of every person in our history, Levin is the only "great one." If we did a multiple choice survey asking, "who is the greatest person in U.S. history," with answers of, A. Thomas Jefferson, B. Thomas Edison, C. Steve Jobs, or D. Mark Levin, Mark Levin would not stand a chance and that is just U.S. history.Even if we narrow it down to current day, conservative, radio talk show hosts, he is behind Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Laura Ingraham.[2] Rebuttal"Mark Levin is on of the most influential political analysers in the business. liberals fear him, The fear of being shot down by facts and logic. my source is marklevinshow.com to see for your self."Being "one of the most" is different from being "the great one" and I could not find any evidence supporting the statement, "liberals fear him," using the biased source given by pro. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]http://www.talkers.com...
We should cull Asians debate 2

To refute my opponent's points: 1) "Hitler did not want to kill the Jews, he just didn't want them on his land" All history records show that Hitler HATED jews, he even went out of his way to kill them, he invade other countries FOR their jews to kill. He even killed jews inside Germany! I don't see how you can side with hitler on that topic.... That point is down. 2) "Since there will be less Asians, there would be more land" an Asian born after the year 2000 is ten years old right now at most, ten year olds DO NOT OWN LAND! Their parents do! If we cull Asians born after the year 2000 years we will be killing innocent, non land owning, people! That point off the table. 3) "a good chunk of the population is gone, the economy will increase because of the high demand BY Asia for resources" for the record, America represents about 4% of the population but uses 25% of the world's resources, so if we're culling anyone, it would be Americans, but that's not the point. If an American accuses others of being resource gobbling, he is a hypocite, as my opponent clearly is. Asia represents 50% of the population and uses 45% of the world's resources. 4) "I did not state all the Asians, just those born after the year 2000" Oh that's great, killing children who don't own land, consume little resources, and will grow up to operate business in Asia such as factories, farms, etc. Below is a graph of how much the world pop. has it's money. As you can see, the majority of the cash is with the rich, the top 1 percent. Financial Wealth Top 1 percentNext 19 percentBottom 80 percent 198342.9%48.4%8.7% 198946.9%46.5%6.6% 199245.6%46.7%7.7% 199547.2%45.9%7.0% 199847.3%43.6%9.1% 200139.7%51.5%8.7% 200442.2%50.3%7.5% 200742.7%50.3%7.0% Sources: http://www.chacha.com... http://www.eia.doe.gov... http://www.uic.com.au... http://www.ei...
We should cull Asians debate 2

First of all, I said i needed to change the title, and you should have looked at it first. I shall start by refuting: 1. When my opponent declared that culling the Asians would be the same act as Hitler. First of all, the Asian population is almost 4 billion, and second, Hitler did not want to kill the Jews, he just didn't want them on his land, and Hitler wanted to kill ALL the Jews after they would not leave, I stated that we should cull all Asians AFTER the year 2000. I did not say we should cull them all! 2. Since there will be less Asians, there would be more land, thus more use of it, and we could easily post a few people from each country to work there, problem solved. And you forgot about the Asians, they consume more than almost every other country, so it will definitely help us, with most of them gone. 3. And since a good chunk of the population is gone, the economy will increase because of the high demand BY Asia for resources, we will get resources such as oil for a much cheaper price, and so what if the manufactured some of our toys? We could easily just make them ourselves or buy them off another country, so no problem there. 4. And i did not state all the Asians, just those born after the year 2000. I will now summarize my points, Not only will culling all the Asians after the year of 2000 will clearly help everyone, including the world itself. I have refuted all my opponent's points and thank you for this debate. Sources: www.chicagoreader.com www.socialsecrets.com
We should cull Asians debate 2

- First I would like to say that I am sorry for misreading the title, Hax sent me a challlenge that was "we should eat asians debate 2" then cancelled it while I was posting, and renamed it to we should cull asians, the catch was he told me the only change was a character limit, please realize that when you vote for him you are voting for a cheater. ==================================Refutes===================================== 1) There are 3 billion asians in the world. My opponent is resorting to the method Hitler used when he killed jews. How can we call ourselves human when we are going to kill every baby that was born after the year 2000. If hax wins, we will be killing so many asian babies! How can we call ourselves a species if we commit mass homocide that attempts to wipe out a race of people. 2) My opponent stated that hunger will decline all over the world, on the contrary, Asia produces 85% of the world's food, if we kill all these babies, who will be left to farm the farms, run the factories, and work in Asia? In fact we will STARVE! 3) My opponent stated that economies will go through the roof on the contrary (au contraire) the world economy will almost certainly collapse, with the vast Asian economy gone, how will the world's economy recover? Almost everything nowadays is made in China, where will we get these products now? 4) Again, i'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but we cannot kill all asians ====================================Conclusion================================= I have clearly proved that culling all asians is impractical, unethical, and immoral. ====================================Final Word================================= I would like to point out my opponent has stated NO sources, NO definitions, and NO viable way to cull Asians born after 2000. =============================Sources========================================= http://www.ieer.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... =VOTE CON=
We should cull Asians debate 2

By the way, this debate is about culling Asians, not killing them (PWNED) Thus, making ALL his points completely out of this debate. Anyways, to my 2 main reasons why we should cull Asians: Overpopulation better for the earth. For my first reason, Overpopulation. There are currently 3,879,000,000 Asian people in this world, which is more than half the whole world's population. There are over 200 babies born in Asia each day and only 10 die. At this rate, the world will have an average of every 5 out of 8 people Asian. I believe we should not cull all of the Asians, but all who were born after 2000, for this shall restore population balance to this world. Not only will hunger decline all over the world, but the economies will smash through the roof! The other countries can then use the unpopulated land for other uses, such as a World Dump, or even a global theme park! And no matter what we can do to put some laws to limit the children per household, the population shall not be changed significantly for hundreds of years! It will help the world, and that is including the earth! Less resources will be in demand, and global warming will also be largely terminated! And if we do choose to eat Asians, which would be dangerous, as Rocky has stated, we will decline hunger even quicker, but that is if you want to take chances. And the "Kuru" disease is very rare, so this will clearly help my debate, including those who starve each day. I will continue my points in the next round.
We should cull Asians debate 2

=============================Refutes============================================ To refute my opponent's one current point, they may be half of the world, but is the way to solve this to resort to cannibalism? My opponent has yet to say why we cannot use any other means of birth control. For example, China has implemented the One-Child-Policy. Which is estimated will cut the Asian population in half in one generation! This is how we solve the problem! ==================================Points======================================== 1) Cannibalism is unhealthy: According to BBC and many many many other sources and research studies, cannibalism can cause "Kuru" an unfortunate epidemic where if one is infected it is almost certain death, Kuru is incurable and causes symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhea, enlarged stomach, and ultimately death. Kuru causes physiological as well as neurological effects that ultimately lead to death. 2) Cannibalism is unethical: The way the pro has presented his argument, he is saying that we kill Asians for their meat! This is completely unethical and immoral. We are not supposed to eat each other, but preserve each other! ===============================Sources========================================= http://en.wikipedia.org...(disease)#Presentation http://www.pnas.org... http://www.emedicine.com... http://content.nejm.org... ============================================================================ ================================VOTE CON===================================== ============================================================================
Moon Hoax

Sorry, I accidentally cut of one of my arguments: Why did the US go back to the moon 6 other times? As you know, the Saturn-V costs lots of money, I think in the millions, but I don't know for sure. Rebuttal 1: Your first picture which supposedly shows two light sources is not valid. Think about it, if there were two light sources acting upon the rocks and the LEM, then there would be TWO shadows, not just one. Think about it, if you're in a gym with those big lights, you have multiple shadows, not just one. As shown is this photo, http://www.braeunig.us... you can see the shadows pointing in different directions, yet there is one light source. There are slopes that mess with the angles that you see the shadows. Rebuttal 2: The picture is not the original picture, and likely had a coiled hair in the shape of a C on it. Rebuttal 3: Those are infact the same mountains, the NASA person was at fault. Those pictures were taken within minutes of each other.
Moon Hoax

Why didn't the Soviets say the moon landings were faked? Numerous countries, including the Soviets, tracked the flight, along with lots of other astronomers.I do not have a solid answer for you. My Best assumptions could either be that:A. Information was falsified by agents working for the us with the tracking data. B. They lied about tracking the data but didn't want to start a big argument.Why did the US go back to the moon 6 other times? As you know, the Saturn-VIf the first Hoax was successful, What would stop them for faking the restWhat reason would the US have to fake the landings?To Beat the Soviets in the space race. It was a big deal between the two countries for the US to beat the soviets to the moon.Now my arguments:Looking at this picture here: http://i2.wp.com...It would suggest multiple lighting sources. This could very well be from stage lighting aiming in different directions.In this picture: http://i1.wp.com...We have a rock which looks like it has a letter c inscribed on it. This could be from a prop company labeling a rock to take a picture of. But forgetting to place the c downward.And lastly we have this picturee:http://i1.wp.com...Which NASA claims to have miles apart with the exact same background.
Moon Hoax

Thanks for accepting, you look like a worthy opponent. KSP is also my favorite game :D. Rules: Please be logical and reasonable, and we will use the innocent until proven guilty method with the footage. Also, no swearing or name calling. Thank you. Questions: Why didn't the Soviets say the moon landings were faked? Numerous countries, including the Soviets, tracked the flight, along with lots of other astronomers. Why did the US go back to the moon 6 other times? As you know, the Saturn-V What reason would the US have to fake the landings? By the way, what did you think of my other debate with changb?
Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

I graciously accept AndyHood’s challenge. I’m hoping this will be an enlightening and engaging exchange. Burden of Proof Majority of the Burden of Proof rests upon PRO to establish that “Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism”. Positive arguments must be provided by PRO towards that end. I also have a portion of the Burden of Proof, but only insofar as I must offer reasons to consider PRO’s arguments either inadequate to establish the resolution as true, or else wrong entirely. If PRO either (A) fails to provide any positive arguments, (B) is unable to defend his arguments against my rebuttals, or (C) concedes, I should be awarded the points for arguments. If PRO’s arguments do succeed (that is, neither (A) nor (B) nor (C) obtains), however, he should be awarded the points for arguments. What is “Reasonable”? I see a definition for “theist”, “atheist”, and “personal god”, but no definition for “Reasonable”. In terms of belief, that which is “reasonable” is that which is (1) supported by logic (at least one of deductive, inductive or abductive), (2) supported by evidence, (3) an axiomatic assumption, or (4)some combination thereof (for example, logical inferences from axioms and evidence-supported propositions). There might be another way to justify belief, but I’m not sure what that would be. This list seems, to me, to be exhaustive. For clarity, I will provide a belief and a way in which it can be justified. (1) The belief that “Socrates is mortal” can be justified by argument, like so: a. Socrates is a man b. All men are mortal. c. Therefore, Socrates is Mortal (2) The belief that “mammals give live birth” can be justified by evidence, either via personal witness or else through scientific studies. (3) The belief that “I exist” cannot be justified through any level of evidence, as evidence presumes existence, and it is difficult to justify through argument. Yet we still believe it. Almost any other belief necessarily assumes one’s existence. This is similar to the belief in other minds or sense-objects. Some epistemologists call these “basic beliefs” because they are not inferred by any other belief and we believe them because they seem evident to the senses or seem indubitable. (4) It seems that most beliefs could be said to be justified in more than one of the other three ways, so I’ve included this to ensure all beliefs at least can potentially be justified, even if they are not in fact justified. Now, with that definition and explication out of the way, I leave it to PRO to argue for the resolution. Good luck!
Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

Hot on the heels of a frustrating debate with vi_spex, which I liken to wrestling a hagfish, Pfalcon has kindly agreed to debate me on this subject; having looked at a couple of his earlier debates, I am looking forward to engaging with an intelligent human being who evidently takes debates seriously; thanks, Con! So to the question at hand which is whether atheism is a more reasonable position to take than theism. The question is not necessarily about whether there is a God or not, rather about whether one is using one's reason when one believes in a personal god; for belief in a personal god is precisely what is required to be a theist. Personal god: A personal god is a deity who can be related to as a person[1] instead of as an impersonal force, such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being". http://en.wikipedia.org... "Theism" is a term coined by Ralph Cudworth in the late 17th Century. I am perfectly comfortable using his definition as, I hope, Pfalcon will be: "[They are] strictly and properly called Theists who affirm that a perfectly conscious understanding being, or mind, existing of itself from eternity, was the cause of all other things" Cudworth, Ralph (1678). The True Intellectual System of the Universe, Vol. I. New York: Gould & Newman, 1837, p. 267. I hope also that there will not be any argument about the definition of atheism, which for simplicity can be defined as the non-acceptance of the basic theistic claim. Thus all people are divided cleanly into two groups: those who accept the claim that there is a personal god who caused all things (theists) and those who do not accept that claim (atheists). I contend that it is far more rational and reasonable to not accept that claim, given the absence of any meaningful evidence. Good luck!