BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Censorship in the Media should be Abolished

Given that some redundancy has developed among the 3 points, I will respond in a different format. a) Childhood innocence is still valuable. It seems, in point 2, that my opponent says that industry is channeling boys and girls into a stereotype. He implies with his choice of words that the stereotypes are undesirable. I agree. Parents should try to divert their children from modeling "toys like Barbie and Bratz" and "all those soldier toys". It is more difficult for a parent to do this if companies can display unrestricted content in media viewed by many children, mostly for the purpose of enticing them. With censorship, it is possible for a parent to let their child out from under the "rock" and still introduce issues of sex and violence to their children on their own terms, and in their own way. Also, knowledge of sex and violence make children's lives more complicated. They need to learn about it eventually, but they benefit from a period without society depicting it to them in extreme ways. It has been said that Ignorance is bliss. This is a bliss reserved for childhood. Knowledge is power for adults. b) Censorship is not futile. I already displayed how even Youtube strives to make it less likely that children will stumble upon certain content. The possibility of obtaining premature knowledge of sex, violence and language is always there but the amount discovered and the chance of discovering can be made lower. My opponent states "Censorship is the main problem with the extinguishing of these vices, and every single movie and television producer knows it and will exploit that desire for everything it's worth." First of all, the extinguishing of these vices is not a realistic social goal. Also, my opponent appears to be employing hyperbole, given that the producers of Veggie Tales do not appear to be exploiting the vices for everything they're worth. c) Censorship provides freedom. It is not only for children. Censorship allows people to freely explore certain media without being extremely cautious. If someone desires uncensored media my opponent has clearly stated that it is easy to find. Lack of censoring could make fully graphic images of violence and nudity nearly impossible to avoid, while I have proved that censoring makes it possible to avoid them. Education should not come from toys my opponent mentioned in point 1. d) Images of child pornography are taken off the internet by the government. This is an example of censorship in the internet. This is not a part of what is usually referred to as "The Media", because it is illegal. The ability of the government to censor products of illegal activities helps to deter them. Thanks for a good debate- Johannes Jones
Censorship in the Media should be Abolished

Good Luck to him. Let my thesis simply stand as: Censorship in the media should not be abolished completely. On with my 3 points. 1) My opponent stated: "Many of the explicit content videos that have been uploaded onto the site are blocked by a mere "confirm your age" button. All one needs to do is change the birth year to anytime earlier than 1988, and then they are granted complete access to any video, mature or otherwise. This ease to view whatever you want no matter what age you are is a perfect example of how in today's age information is available to literally anyone. " It is true that many videos are blocked by a largely ineffectual honors system regarding age. Many other videos, however, are removed by Youtube. Youtube is censored. <. http://www.youtube.com...; While it is all but impossible to take off inappropriate videos as soon as they are posted, Youtube tries to keep them to a minimum. You cannot view "whatever you want" via youtube. As for the rest of the internet, that can be effectively filtered or monitored by parents or guardians. <. http://www.covenanteyes.com...; <. http://www.internetsafety.com...; 2)"It is simply inevitable that people, not excluding children, will eventually be exposed to the 'horrors' of real life, like it or not. Already many children know what the concept of sex is, and violence is certainly nothing new to them what with modern video games and television. Even something as seemingly innocent like Pokï¿½mon is all about violence. Every episode has at least battle, where it can clearly be observed that one creature has every intention of inflicting physical harm on the other, and so on. " Once again, just because some content displaying my opponent's 3 vices gets through does not mean all of it should. People are exposed to real life eventually. That is true. The dangers of overprotection from the realities of life have been presented in many movies and books (The Village, The Giver, The Truman Show, and The Matrix to name a few. ) This does not mean a society should be on the opposite end of the spectrum and leave it completely up to guardians to shelter children from information. The innocence that comes from childhood ignorance makes for a more stress free early life. 3) Many guardians are of the opinion that children should be sheltered from sex, violence, and profanity. Lack of censorship requires them to censor everything themselves, which is much more difficult with television than with the internet. Parental blocks are possible, but channels that may have inappropriate content may also have children's shows. This makes the DIY censorship tedious. Overhearing curse words on the street and having them consistently on television (which is a focus, not a distraction) are two different things. Censorship is, then, beneficial to society.
Evolution (Con) vs. Creationism (Pro)

I am sorry as I can not continue with such a debate. It is interesting and i encourage you to repost this again. The reason why is because I have recently been involved in a lot of family business and I cant take the time to continue this. Please repost this so the ones who requested may have a true chance having this great debate. I am again SO sorry for having to just quit. It is rude of me but I can not find the time to continue this. I am sorry.
Evolution (Con) vs. Creationism (Pro)

Hello my name is james and i am eager to begin. Evolution - the scientific observation of longterm and short term adaptations through diversification. Abiogenesis - the scientific theory that the first protean or proteans evolved in the right conditions from non-living things. Theory - something that can be tested, observed and is observable and is higher than scientific law. Microevolution - varieties in a different type that evolve major adaptations over a shorter period of time. Macroevolution - major evolutions over a long period of time. http://www.notjustatheory.com... http://www.britannica.com... http://biologos.org... http://www.icr.org...
Evolution (Con) vs. Creationism (Pro)

Full Resolution: Which model creation or evolution can better account for the variety in species we see today. Now that I have the time to do this debate I'll reinstate it. Notice that this debate is impossible to accept and if you find a way to accept then you forfeit. Comment below if you are interested. Arguments must be kept biological. If not, then the side must justify using the argument by explaining why it is relevant to the resolution. Creationism - the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. Source: . http://dictionary.reference.com...
there is no god, becuase then i would know god

Listen chump. God ain't explode nothing. The big bang a dammed lie from the deceptiveness of confusionist.God took the waves of protonic energyness and put that shitt in stectonic rays.The flash of brightness impregnated the emptyness. I saw every bit of this in my brain.God produced two hundred billion galactic charges all at the same time. The static of nothingness was used against its dammed self.God defeated the darkness with light.
A Fiddle is a better instrument than a Kazoo

Are you kidding me? The kazoo is one of the world's finest instrument's. The beauty of a kazoo is that anyone can play it. The fiddle takes lots of practice, and even if you do have the practice, you must worry about tuning. And another thing, you can make a kazoo out of household materials (a toilet paper roll, wax paper, and a rubber band). How many other instruments are capable of that?
A Fiddle is a better instrument than a Kazoo

Oh please! The kazoo is like the incessant screaming of a little child. Waah Waah. The kazoo is just Bzz Bzz Bzz Bzz. Imagine that in your ear for a minute. I don't know how anybody can stand it. The fiddle can be calming if played by the right person. The fiddle can be joyous for dancing a merrymaking. I can imagine how a kazoo could be cute if played by a little kid for a short amount of time, but after a couple of minutes it will become extremely annoying. When I think of kazoos I think of Flo from Progressive. In one commercial she says she is offering kazoo lessons. She is like a kazoo. There are so many commercials and she is so annoying that people change the channel or mute it every time she comes on. Half of the time I watch TV is muted because of a kazoo like person. Things that are incessantly annoying make you want to blow up your head. Kazoos can ruin your life.
Albert Einstein was a phony

Im sorry, okay/. Look, i loved my dad before but i don't now. I'm just an internet troll who thinks that making his friends laugh through this will make me happy. and maybe it does for a bit, but after a while, it just dies off. i don't care about debating. the world is wild and convoluted and involved and destroyed. why bother debating? just enjoy your life friend. I'm sure you're a great guy. enjoy all you have, while you have it. thats all i have to say. Good bye and good luck. And this is the only true debate i will ever post. (unless i get drunk again, which i probably will, but for now, yeah, enjoy the truth.)
Whites need to be bred out.

Well it looks like my opponent has run out of ideas and is now trying to make up words. I looked up "conservadumb" in the dictionary, but sadly there was no definition. I would also like to say that I am in fact not voting for Trump, and I am in fact not racist. I don't think I have said anything in this debate that would be a proving example of how I am racist. However the title of this argument is "Whites Need to be Bred Out", and since you are the one who named this and you are arguing for whites to be gone, it simply proves you are racist. Like I have said countless time you can't blame a whole group of people for what one person did, so you cannot call white people "bad". I agree that fracking is bad and I wish it wasn't practice. Wars are commonplace and are not just among whites. I also don't know how simply existing is destroying this world? You have stated that Egyptians invented electricity, but you have not provided any sources or evidence. Also, the battery was invented by Alessandro Volta (https://en.wikipedia.org...). You also did not provide any evidence with Indians inventing the telephone, and I have not seen any proof of that, along with Eskimos inventing the fridge. I see you have some dealings with history though, as Carver did invent many things concerning peanuts. The real number is actually around 300, not 100. Einstein did come up with the Theory of Relativity, so maybe you should check your facts. Einstein is indeed in fact Jewish, however Adolf Hitler is the one who oppressed the Jewish people in the Holocaust, not all of the whites. As this is the end of the debate I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to argue with him and make my valid points. I would also like to thank anyone who votes. Thank you.
Whites need to be bred out.

Look you republicant conservadumb. Go vote for Trump you idiot. For racists like you, when we say racism is bad we mean WHITE PEOPLE ARE BAD. Do me a favor and don't breed we don't need any more whites destroying this earth with fracking, wars, and existing. Egyptians invented battery and electricity. Indians made first verison of telephone. Eskimos invented the fridge George Washington Carver made 100 things with peanuts while Einstein helped work on most destructive bomb ever he also did idiot work on theoretical physics. Einstein is not white he is Jewish which white oppressed in holocaust murder. Whites will be a minority in 50 years you already getting bred out we need them bred out faster.
Whites need to be bred out.

There may still be doctors, lawyers, etc., but think of how many are lost. Much of the U.S. government is made up of white officials so that will fall apart. Like I said in the last round, you can't blame all whites for what a few white people did. Look at all the good we have done. Newton came up with the Laws of Motion, and Einstein with the theory of relativity. Thomas Edison came up with the lightbulb, Oliver Evans the refrigerator, Percy Spencer the microwave, Alexander Graham Bell the telephone, etc. You cannot honestly say that white people have invented nothing. If we copied off of Africans then why weren't they inventing anything and we were the slaves? It is because white people invented it. Your last comment makes me laugh at how stupid and ignorant some people can be. May I also say that if we are going to judge a race based on a person's actions, how about you look up a little something called the Hutus and Tutsis? In fact I will give you a link since I can't be fully assured you will find the page. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Whites need to be bred out.

This topic seems more of an opinion than something that should actually be argued about. To be honest, I was appalled that someone would suggest such a thing. As of 2013, there was 197.7 million non-hispanic white people living in just the United States. As of then that was 63.3% of the U.S. population. The world population now is 7.4 billion, and 16% of that is 1.184 billion people. Think of how many scientists, doctors, lawyers, government officials, etc. that would be gone. You cannot say that whites are genetically racist, since that is not something that can be genetically proven. The idea of enslaving people not like us, or not as big as us is something that spans across all species. A form of it is seen everywhere. Lions and wolves live in prides and packs which have a sort of social hierarchy. The bigger stronger ones are the ones that lead the pack, a little bit like how "white" people were of a bigger group and make anyone not part of their group do their work. Slavery was something that was created to make civilizations grow and prosper. It is now outlawed however, and if any one person does participate in it, then you still cannot blame the rest of their race for it. It is like saying that one African American killed a dog, so all African Americans kill dogs and hate them. This is a bit ridiculous. You are calling white people racist, but frankly, you are the racist one.
Whites need to be bred out.

For as long as time Whites have oppressed, abused, and enslaved non-whites all along the planet. Whites are the descendants of Neanderthals. The worst people in history were all white such as Hitler. Whites are genetically racist. They only make up less than 16 percent of the population. Blue Eyes are a birth defect, Brown eyes are normal. Diversity is strength. Whites need to be bred out to the point of extinction and they will be.
It's better to do something rather than nothing.

Well if you truly believe that doing something is better than doing nothing and you posted this argument why would you expect someone doing nothing to argue with you if by your definition of doing something is even engaging in a conversation, then would that be a call to hypocrisy? My definition of doing nothing is obviously differs from yours. Doing nothing to me is a retreat into the mind where I can calmly relax, most of the time on the internet doing nothing "productive" When I relax I have thoughts, thoughts that often wouldn't be considered strange by the general public. When I think, I want to come up with a decisive plan to marry my true love Satan, when that happens I'll be able to divorce him and gain half his power and possessions. Once I have power I will be able to introduce the entire world as we know it into absolute and total oblivion, Once I have wiped out the human race I will be able to relax finally and by my definition "do nothing." So I end my argument with this, the process of doing something in the pursuit of doing nothing is obviously the greater answer to this. Praise be unto Satan, my dark lord and future husband.
It's better to do something rather than nothing.

My opponent has asked what would be considered doing something. Let us say for the sake of this debate that doing something would be to perform a voluntary action. So by replying to the argument you are doing something. You voluntarily chose to reply to my argument meaning that you felt it was necessary or worth it to continue this debate. This only further supports my theory that it is better to do something rather than nothing. However, what if we take it to an extreme and say that it is better to do something productive rather than something unproductive. We would then have to define productive accurately and describe what is considered productive. We would also need to figure out why such actions are considered productive. This leads me to believe that the more deeply we look into things in life the more I fall into a pit of solipsism and slowly begin to question my own sanity. Why is it that no one else can see the rainbow fairies or the elves of old? Is it because that they really don't exist or that I'm the only one who can see and understand them. This question has haunted me for decades. As I look into the stars each night wondering what colors I'm seeing, I take a moment and enjoy the radiance of the moon. It is during these moments that I wonder whether it is better to do something rather than nothing, but what is nothing? I've spoken with many mythological creatures in my life and heard great stories of the other worlds. They tell me of great kings and men who have all sought detachment only to become victim to their own humanity. I've ascertained that detachment, true detachment is only possible after seeing the other side of our world. I can show you the world, shining, shimmering, splendid. Tell me, tallydupreeboss, now when did you last let your heart decide? Our heart is our only guide to enlightenment and with years of dedication you will see the world I see, too.
It's better to do something rather than nothing.

What exactly is considered doing something? If the mere action of doing anything at all as well as involuntarily actions of the human body, such as the heart pumping blood cells as well as breathing. The brain is always in activity at certain points the activity is lower such as when we rest. So does that mean I am always doing something, What is the definition of doing nothing, I'm just sitting here cause I like to argue and beating by dick, so in turn I'm doing nothing productive by societies view point. Which breaks it down to the only people that do nothing are people that are absent of their life...in short dead niggas.
The US should introduce a system of ennoblement

- 1 - The US didnt adopt those titles for professional rank, those are just the names of job positions they occupy. And once those people leave those posts they dont get to keep those titles so a reverand who retires from the church wont always be addressed as reverand _______ . - 2 - Titles of Nobility wont eliminate lobbying in government, and the people you want to give these titles to dont lobby for government (Paris Hilton Steve Jobs, etc. ). Titles of nobility dont eliminate lobbying because people dont lobby for respect, they lobby for leverage or for power. - 3 - - 4 - I dont think the Constitution should be changed or altered just so that Tom Cruise can have the title of "Pioneer" in the front of his name. .. . - 5 - So now we should hire other people to waste time to argue and quibble over who should be considered royalty or not? thats not much better than wasting the presidents time over the matter. .. - 6 - Im not here to argue which titles should be used, im here to argue that there shouldnt be any titles of nobility in the first place.
The US should introduce a system of ennoblement

I would like to thank Imabench for accepting this debate and to reply to his various objections as follows: 1) It does not reflect the social standing of the people receiving the titles The United States has already adopted certain titles that confer respect and status on their bearers in accordance with their professional rank. Here are some examples: Doctor Anne T. de-Mocratique Chief Justice Brad Slobberchops Professor Holly Korst Lieutenant Juan-Pat E. Roole Reverend Eamonn E. Grabber Captain Buster Gutt Police Commissioner Hank J. Wienersucker III Attorney General Buck Grubscoffer Detective Sergeant Polly Stait Rabbi Isaac Kashkowski Chief Justice Phil A. O'Fish Sheriff Billy-Bob Turdkicker Imam Thackeray C. I. O'Toller Deputy Inspector Martin Gallonhat Colonel Ken Tucker Fred Schicken Mayor Plato MacEnchies It is only a short hop from professional status to social status – and both have the design and effect to set the title-holder above the common crowd. 2) It puts people unfairly ahead of other ordinary people in a society where equality of opportunity is considered holy The reality is that certain people already exercise considerable influence on the President: ultra-high-net-worth individuals financially support presidential election campaigns but they don't do so out of the goodness of their hearts – they do so because they want something in return, usually tax cuts for rich people like them. However, with a system of noble patronage, the funders of election campaigns could be rewarded with a title that would make them feel special and would not mean that middle-class people have to pay more tax to make up for the shortfalls in the contributions from the mega-rich. 3) Its flat out illegal / 4) Making it legal would be a costly and time consuming process in a time where other issues are far more important With the utmost respect, the US Constitution a bit out of date these days – it's hundreds of years old and its authors could never have foreseen the political, social and economic realities of the 21st Century. Perhaps it is time to look at making amendments to it quicker and easier? 5) Putting the sole power of granting these titles to the president could be wasteful In Britain, the Queen may ennoble people of her own choice but more often or not people considered worthy are nominated by others and a committee decides who should and should not get what title – and a similar system could be adopted in the US. 6) Wouldn't work My opponent is being unduly negative - of course it would work! I agree that the titles I thought up do not have sufficient gravitas and would not command the appropriate level of respect, but perhaps my opponent could think up some better ones? Sorry to cut this short and not provide any sources but I only have a few minutes to go before the deadline is up. Thank you.