BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Do you think mine craft Is a child's game

You have obviously given up on this debate yes it is virtual building but you see you have to gather the right material and other such things you see Minecraft is a game but it is easy to get because it can be for kids but it can be for adults to like some you tubers markiplier yamimash ect all play the game tiny turtle and little lizard have huge serious of Minecraft and they have taken a long time to build so I belive Minecraft isn't a child's game
Global Warming is real, get over it.

"Temperatures after ice-ages will rise, but they do not normally rise by almost a degree in 150 years! It is an incredible rate of change (on a global scale) and points to something much more servere than 'only a little temperature rise'." 1/3 of degree in 150 years actually. And you know why? Krakatoa, that big volcano in the Pacific, exploded in the 1600s, and this spewed ash into the air. Soon afterwords, global temperatures plummeted, drastically. (History Channel) Obviously a drastic rise is needed to counteract that sudden drop. "I've got no idea what GISS is, but i'm not sure there entirely accurate. The British Antarctic Survey has found the antarctic peninsula to be "one of the fastest warming parts of the planet". http://www.antarctica.ac.uk...; GISS is probably the most accurate temperature collection agency in the world. They monitor the southernmost temperature collection system in the world, at least that has been keeping records for more than 100 years, and the average rate of change at that temperature station has been -.1 degrees Centigrade. The data that most proponents of GW cite is simply the rate of change between the first point of data, and the most recent. However, that is a statistically incorrect method of analyzing data. Go to NASA if you want to find GISS, or read State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, he has the link in the appendix. "The temperature is rising...this is the only way to begin a shift in the way the climate works." http://en.wikipedia.org... Graph of global temperatures since 450000 years ago. Notice the current temperatures are by no means anomalous. "I will leave you to suppose that, hyperthetically, you had to imagine a world where climate change was happening... what would you look for? A sudden rise of temperatures? Yearly 'hottest year ever' awards? Polar ice caps beginning to melt? Hmm the reality isnt that far away is it." Anomalies in long term temperature changes, upper atmosphere temperature shifts, need I say more? My opponent dropped my points that the upper atmosphere has stayed constant in temperature, contrary to what the greenhouse effect would produce if it were causing warming, the fact that greenhouse gases have not increased significantly enough to change temperatures, and that current temperatures are not anomalous.
Global Warming is real, get over it.

"You know what 1850 was? The end of the Little Ice Age. Its only natural that it is occurring." Temperatures after ice-ages will rise, but they do not normally rise by almost a degree in 150 years! It is an incredible rate of change (on a global scale) and points to something much more servere than 'only a little temperature rise'. "The poles are well below freezing, think -20 Celcius. 2/3 of a degree, not that significant. Also, Antartica has gotten on average colder. (GISS)" I've got no idea what GISS is, but i'm not sure there entirely accurate. The British Antarctic Survey has found the antarctic peninsula to be "one of the fastest warming parts of the planet". http://www.antarctica.ac.uk... "Climate change implies a significant shift in the way our climate works. There is no shift, as I have proven." The temperature is rising...this is the only way to begin a shift in the way the climate works. I will leave you to suppose that, hyperthetically, you had to imagine a world where climate change was happening... what would you look for? A sudden rise of temperatures? Yearly 'hottest year ever' awards? Polar ice caps beginning to melt? Hmm the reality isnt that far away is it.
Global Warming is real, get over it.

"Guess when 11 of the warmest 12 years since 1850 were? I understand that the earths climate changes periodically, (the UK used to be desert, and it feels like a long way from that today!). However, anyone clever enough to understand that the climate does change, should be wise to notice that it is right now." You know what 1850 was? The end of the Little Ice Age. Its only natural that it is occurring. "Well i'm sure most people reading will appreciate that yes it probably is quite a lot to get worried about. Another point I should add is that 'average' climate change values are doubled near the poles. 1/3 of a degree in the sahara may not make much of a difference, but 2/3 of a degree near the poles, in such a short time??" The poles are well below freezing, think -20 Celcius. 2/3 of a degree, not that significant. Also, Antartica has gotten on average colder. (GISS) "In conclusion, there is not much we as a race can do to add to/detract from the rate at which the climate is changing. One thing we can do however, is accept that it is." Climate change implies a significant shift in the way our climate works. There is no shift, as I have proven.
Global Warming is real, get over it.

Haha yes that was just about sufficient! Firstly, to clear things up, i am not suggesting that the earth is warming because of the CO2 we are producing, because the amount we contribute (compared to the sea and cow's arses) is somewhat tiny. I understand that yes, there is 'a low proportion of co2 in the atmosphere' compared to oxygen, nitrogen etc. However, the o-zone layer it reacts with is also minute, and still thinning in most areas across the globe. Guess when 11 of the warmest 12 years since 1850 were? I understand that the earths climate changes periodically, (the UK used to be desert, and it feels like a long way from that today!). However, anyone clever enough to understand that the climate does change, should be wise to notice that it is right now. You said, "If the most accurate temperature collection system shows only a third of a degree increase from an ice age, is that really a cause for alarm?" Well i'm sure most people reading will appreciate that yes it probably is quite a lot to get worried about. Another point I should add is that 'average' climate change values are doubled near the poles. 1/3 of a degree in the sahara may not make much of a difference, but 2/3 of a degree near the poles, in such a short time?? In conclusion, there is not much we as a race can do to add to/detract from the rate at which the climate is changing. One thing we can do however, is accept that it is.
Should teens have social media

Also Obama"s 2008 campaign succeed because of social media. Social media can increase student participation in the classroom and outside of the classroom. If you were to let student get on social media they could make sure that their family are ok, but it also serves as something to do during lunch or when we have finished class. So that we could have something to do to quit bugging them during class. So that our teachers can grade papers or do whatever they need to do. You can also us social media to save money, and did you know Pete Chapman says, "Social media is one of the main reasons that old friends reconnect." Rob Jelly also says, "I use social media to engage people on my radio show." Did you know that social media lets students who are disabled communicate with others? According to Swhelper.com "People with disabilities of all ages are seen using Twitter, Facebook, blogging platforms, businesses websites, and Kickstarter campaigns to share their life experiences. Additionally, it is providing a platform for people with disabilities to voice the changes they want to see in expanding inclusion, education, employment, and advocacy opportunities. The advancements in technology, for example iPads and other tablets, have broken down barriers to allow people of various limitation levels to display their presence on social media and in society. The invention of these devices has opened doors when it comes to communication, therapeutic progress, and educational enhancement for students and adults with disabilities. Social media also allows people with disabilities a platform to educate the public about what it means to be disabled while allowing people with disabilities to become self-advocates without having to leave their own homes. Advocacy and self-advocacy are key components for people with disabilities in order to promote empowerment within the population. Additionally, it allows for discussion and advocacy for the implementation of effective and efficient programs and policies in order to improve the well-being, social, educational, and economic needs of the group." Just because people say that teens not having social media means that they will not get bullied is not true. Teens will get bullied no matter what, the percentage of teens that commit suicide because of bullying, or cyberbullying the percentage of teens that commit suicide every year is almost 25% of teens. 14% of high schoolers have considered suicide and almost 7% of teens have actually attempted it.
Should teens have social media

'I believe that teens should have social media because it helps them to connect with friends , family and peers. But teens should be limited on how much social media in one day because back when I was in school 4 years ago teens spent most of their lunch break on social media bullying others if their siblings ruined their photo or if their voice sounded funny through the voice recorder on the phone or Ipad." Kids should not have social media because restrictions don't prevent bullying, can connect without the media, and social media contains inappropriate content. 1)Restrictions don't prevent bullying On Instagram let's say for example; implied a restriction for children under 18. Children can easily lie about their age, name, etc. Simple as cake. If kids were to be auto put on an instagram kids, it could not properly filter bad info out because humans could be humans are not care about these kids, just for general audience. 2)Connect with people without social media Phone numbers, schools, extracurricular activities, and hanging out can easily connect people. You do not need your phone to communicate with people as people have done it through most of our history 3) Social contains inappropriate info Little children should not be exposed to racism, nudity, pornography, vulgarity, etc. It leads to bad life choices in the future with being associated with the KKK, American Nazis, etc because of the social media ideas that influence them
Should teens have social media

My rebuttals I have been experience of cyberbullying because someone posted a bad picture of me, so it doesn't distract them, in fact it gives them a drive to do it because they are anonymous and the school will not be able to catch them. It might distract them in real life, but it doesn't distract them from cyber bullying that can lead to real life bullying, Your other claims are also not relevant to the point I made in the rebuttals. Your claim only solves for minor mental diseases, not for major autisms or ADHD's. The mentai severity of autism is so big that they will not be able to talk. No point in saying that they help special needs communicate when it doesn't solve for all special needs. My source is my sister and my cousin. They are unable to communicate verbally and are severe autistic. Your claim doesn't apply to all special needs, therefore, judge disregard the false R2 arg made here. Please read my claim for this argument. Cyber bullying can lead to real life bullying. 52% of teens reported being cyber bullied and that leads to suicide as well.
The use of sweatshops to produce goods is an acceptable practice.

Since Daysuit forfeited I don't have anything new to say, but I stand by the fact that sweatshops are still immoral. Paying workers is different from paying them well, or in many cases even fairly. People working in sweatshops live in conditions that would be unacceptable to any American, no matter how poor. And companies using sweatshops are drawing in huge profit; they can afford to pay workers more and only draw in semi-huge profits. Therefore, sweatshops are not a legitimate practice at all.
The use of sweatshops to produce goods is an acceptable practice.

The use of sweatshops is a good economic practice, but it's a terrible moral one and shouldn't be used because of it. You're argument is that because the standard of living in developing countries is much lower then in the U.S., it's okay to do to them what would be pure exploitation and slave labor to someone here. It's not. Just because someone was born into a circumstance doesn't mean that they have to, or deserve to stay in that circumstance. The fact is, American companies can afford to give these people more. Dollars go a long way in poor countries, and just by paying them our minimum wage- I think the lowest in this country is about $4- it would improve their lives tremendously. Sure, corporations would lose some profits, but paying workers more, and treating them fairly, wouldn't put them in the red. And no one in these companies, or of U.S. consumers would be happy with the life a sweatshop worker, so what right to we have to impose that life on other people when we have the means to improve it? And as for consumers and retailers, most of them know that this is going on and make no effort to stop it, so they are supporting those who are exploiting these people. If I saw my neighbor's house getting robbed and didn't call 911, I'd still be to blame because I did nothing when I knew what was happening and had the opportunity to stop it.
The use of sweatshops to produce goods is an acceptable practice.

In a country on the brink of a huge economic downfall (USA), we are in a great need for affordable goods. The products that we rely on everyday are coming from countries that are terribly poor. Employment rates in these countries and quality of most working conditions are low. We are all citizens of where we are from by circumstance of birth, and they are no different. Some people in the US are born in places where there are less education and job opportunities, but it doesn't mean they aren't intelligent or are lazy if they don't have a degree or lots of money. It just means they have to get by with what means they possibly have afforded to them. Same goes in the rest of the world, if you are born in Indonesia to a poor farming family that is your circumstance. If you are offered or forced into a better job, even as a child, at what point is it the consumers fault for buying the product made? Why should blame be on the contracting business and resulting customers purchase when there are people in the country selling the labor that are willing to do so? From an economic standpoint it makes no sense why sweatshops shouldn't be used.
The Internet has had an overall positive effect on our society.

The Internet is probably one of the greatest, most powerful, and most useful tool to be invented perhaps of the entire last millennium. This is arguable, as you will no doubt see in my opponent's argument the negative effects of the Internet on our society. Definitions are simple: the Internet is used here to mean the World Wide Web, and other Internet-based communications. Society means the world as a whole, internet users and hosts alike. Positive effect is to convey that the Internet has been beneficial to society. Furthermore: I have classified this debate under "society" to indicate that the debate is not primarily about the technology of the Internet, but, as the title suggests, its effects on society. The Internet has become a crucial tool in modern life. It is estimated that over 1 billion people have regular access to the internet. The modern economy, and most modern businesses now have a heavy reliance on it. The internet itself is a huge profit centre. Many people now cannot imagine living without the internet. It provides easy access to even the most obscure of information, allows people to share their opinions and other often useful content with anyone who has access to the internet, and it enables users to have cheap communications with anyone around the world, even instantly. It even has given people the chance to fall in love with like-minded people within just minutes! It can be used for educational, commercial, social, and entertainment purposes, and while many people have many complaints to make about the Internet, even they cannot deny the usefulness of the Internet. So, I await my opponent, with some idea as to what they might say. May the best debater win.
Left and Right Wing are not true concepts in politics.

Wings have absolutely nothing to do with gun rights now homosexuality.The wing, as I explain in round 1, purely refers to the way in which the government goes about enforcing its laws. You identified yourself as a Minarchist Libertarian; this is a right-wing Libertarian if you were unaware.You are more right-wing than most libertarians as minarchism is a step up in severity. You would rather a nation to end up as dysfunctional as India or Nigeria rather than preventing it from getting there in the first place.Also minarchy cannot be Libertarianism in nature as if someone impedes the freedom of another by spewing abusive hate speech towards their way of life, minarchists would not have the government step in whilst Libertarians would.
Left and Right Wing are not true concepts in politics.

My opponant does not know the meaning of the word Libertarian. Libertarians are neither left nor right. Libertarians have a little bit of both. Libertarians are progay like the liberals, and progun like the conservatives for example. Like I always say, liberal and conservative are not the only two options in politics. There is a time to be liberal, and a time to be conservative. From lp.org: Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians advocate freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare.
Left and Right Wing are not true concepts in politics.

While my opponent is a right-wing Libertarian, they fail to understand that the wing refers much more to the economic policies of a political viewpoint.While it's true that left wing is fundamentally more progressive and liberal and right wing is more conservative. [1][2]It's also true that the wing is only about how the government is enforcing its policies (which is largely through taxation and laws regarding economics).The concept of wings is often confusing when we get right-wing libertarians such as and left-wing conservatives.What is thoroughly essential to understand here is why they exist and what the wings truly mean in their viewpoints.A right-wing libertarian is supporting consistent and brutal survival of the fittest mentality in all areas of life. The only way they differ to right-wing conservatives is that they'd let people socially pressure outliers into their way of life, as opposed to laws banning things such as homosexuality they'd allow unpoliced bullying and freedom of speech for people to abuse the outliers. It's perhaps as right-wing as it goes in reality. The Conservatives, however, would prevent this abuse by outlawing such acts in the first place (but most modern right-wing conservatives would allow it if it's behind closed doors and doesn't involve marriage and actually most would prefer heterosexual to be behind closed doors too outside of a wedding situation).A left-wing conservative is all about covering up body and stiff upper lip mentality in terms of culture but when it comes to how the government goes about, they are entirely different to their right-wing counterparts. They would force everyone into equal positions of power from birth so that regardless of a person's parent's wealth, they have equal chance to flourish their talents and grow into highly respected individuals throughout their nation, if not the world. This does, however, reduce the power that the rich have and can leave the question 'why bother to get rich if being poor is just as fun?' but this is why left-wing and right-wing extremes are either completely isolated, like North Korea, or entirely dysfunctional and in huge poverty, like India and Nigeria. This is why the balance between the wings is essential for a nation to succeed.[1] http://c2.com...[2] http://idontgetpolitics.co.uk...
Left and Right Wing are not true concepts in politics.

Let me state why I believe that liberal versus conservative are false paradigms. As a minarchist Libertarian, I see good and bad on both sides. I agree with liberals on not policing the world, on contraception, on women having rights, but I disagree with liberals on overtaxation, I disagree on over regulating other things too. I agree with conservatives on abortion, gun rights, low taxes, a strong national defense, and so on. What I disagree with conservatives on is healthcare, most wars, women's rights, and gay rights. I believe that both sides have truth and lies.
Civil Unions are the Current "Separate But Equal"

Civil unions is a recognition of same-sex couples state created rights and obligations to civil marriages. Some benefits Illinois civil unions offer are: Emergency medical decision-making power Hospital visitation rights Equal tax treatment for couples and families at the state and local level Health insurance coverage for same-sex partners and the other partner's children Automatic inheritance without a will and equal estate tax treatmentï¿½ Right to take Family Emergency and Medical Leave Spousal Testimonial Privilege Equal access to domestic relations laws and procedure, including divorce, division of property, and visitation of children State spousal benefits including workers' compensation and spousal pension coverage Equal access to civil actions dependent on spousal status, including wrongful death, emotional distress, and loss of consortium Right to share a nursing home Right to control disposition of a partner's remains Civil unions are really just the current example of when blacks had the right to school in the US, but a separate school. The way the black schools were given the materials of the whites when they were done with it acknowledging that blacks exist and deserve some rights but not the same rights as whites, civil unions are now acknowledging homosexuals exist and deserve rights, but not the rights of heterosexuals. All states with civil unions give an opportunity to both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples to be involved in a civil union after they go through the process of getting a license. Marriage, in most states, is still defined as "the union of one man and one woman." Why should my rights be taken away just because of my sexual preference? You don't lose rights based on your preference of what drink you like better: milk or juice. Civil unions are just a way states are using to get homosexuals to leave marriage alone. Religion is where the definition of "between man and woman" came from. The first amendment clearly states "separation of church and state." Majority rule, minority rights states that no matter what the majority rules, you cannot take away the minority's rights. Marriage is a right. The majority is taking away the rights of the minority which is unconstitutional. Civil unions are a start towards equality but are stuck under "separate but equal." http://www.eqil.org... http://www.factcheck.org...