BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process

Democracy depends on an educated public. Without an educated public(even one that is extremely biased) there is really no hope for democracy. An educated but biased public exists because the Internet allows us to find people with the same opinion as ourselves. I will concede one point, the media and the public are largely focused on who is winning and supporting their political affiliations. This is simply a byproduct of the web. I can now get a different media channel than my neighbor allowing me to seek out those who agree with me and avoiding those who disagree. This isn't always bad though. For the people in the middle who watch a moderate news station, CNN and BBC come to mind, this provides interesting debate by people they know for both sides. The people who watch the extremely biased news stations would have voted that way anyways but it allows for more debate between the common people(non influential people) influencing the moderates who are the ones who truly decide who wins overall with a few exceptions. Many states are strictly partisan but swing states are decided by the moderates and swing states are determined by moderates.
The influence of the media is detrimental to the American political process

I will start my argument by arguing that though media may be biased it is still better then having no media. While it is true that the media is currently extremely biased it is largely a reflection of the American political climate. The will of the people currently very divided and the media reflects that. The media helps to certify in the minds of the viewers that they are correct it does not create new ideas or alter any persons view of a matter other than to make that individual believe that they are correct more strongly than they did before. An informed public is important for a democracy to work. While a entirely unbiased media would be nice it will likely never happen. The public controls what the media finds important not the other way around. People do get caught in believing that a single political party is always correct but this is part of human nature and not caused by the media. The media may have an agenda but that agenda largely reflects the public view. By the public I mean the group that that media relies on for viewers. For example Fox News largely reflects the conservative agenda because most of the people who watch it are conservative however it does not change any real view of the issue because the people who were watching already had the same solution or thought about it in the same way as Fox News did because Fox News needed to figure out what the conservatives wanted them to say and then say it to get views. To sum it up my argument states that though there is extreme bias in the media that bias does not create bias in the public, instead bias in the public creates bias in the news. People seek out the news channels and media that has the same view as they do.
In the anime/manga series Death Note, were Light's actions just? (more detailed explanation below)

I myself am midway through death note and find it quite interesting. Well now onto debate. Light's actions are clearly unjust for many reasons. First of all what lets say Light is doing this because he genuinely wanted to better society. He happens to be killing all criminals regardless of the crime. To him if you are a felon you must die. Now his murders might be slightly justified if he only killed criminals on death row but he does not so his actions are not just. Also what happens to someone who was falsely accused and the government was considering appealing his case? Oh no more Light just killed him. And what about people who make mistakes when they are young. For example what if a kid made a mistake and went and committed a robbery with his friends. A stupid mistake of youth yet does he deserve to die? The answer is a definite NO! And still there are white collar crimes. Johnny messed up on his taxes he should die. What type of sick thinking is that. Also he committed criminal acts himself by hacking his dad's computer for a list of criminals to kill. Additional he is not doing this to better humanity. He is doing this to rule as a god over people only he thinks are worthy. The rest die. He is doing this for his twisted little power trip. He wants to feel good so he thinks if I can create a society were I rule as god maybe I'll feel better. That is why he is killing criminals. So what makes him better than common murder who kills people whom he wants vengeance on. Nothing, in fact the murder would probably be purer as Light kills more people and for no good reason. That is why I urge a Con ballot.
In the anime/manga series Death Note, were Light's actions just? (more detailed explanation below)

For those of you who have read/watched the Anime/Manga series Death Note, you should already have a basic concept of the idea of the debate. If you haven't, here is the basic plot of the series: A higly intectual boy in college whose name is Light, stumbles upon a Death Note. With the Death Note, you have the ability to kill anyone by picturing their face in your mind, writing their name and cause of death inside of the Death Note. Light decides to use this Death Note to exterminate all the criminals in the world, hoping to create a utopia-like region for all mankind, and become God of the New World. Then Light receives resistance from the police force and his enemy, another very smart guy whose existence is unknown. (He has never shown his face or revealed his true name to anyone, but is simply known as L) This is the basic idea of the story, and if you have finished the whole series, I would appreciate if you didn't spoil the ending. I have just started the series, but I thought it would be an interesting idea to debate. So, the question remains, Do you think Light's actions are just?
There should be no homework for high school students

I think the problem is the amount of homework the students are assigned, not the homework itself. The average amount of homework for each class takes from half an hour up to two. That's the minimum of 4 hours (for 7 classes) the student has to complete. If the school day ends at 4, the student gets home at about 5, (not mentioning the extracurricular sports and clubs that may take place after school, ranging from one to two hours of duration), dinner and daily activities such as showers, etc take two more hours. There is almost no free time. That's why students aren't getting enough sleep and can't be as active at school the next day. A solution would be to decrease the homework, not to take it out completely.
There should be no homework for high school students

I understand how homework plays an important role in the student development and teaches us to prioritize. Students spend 7 hours of the day at school, class durations varying from 45 minutes to an hour or more. Since we spend so much time during class, it seems stupid to make them go over the same thing at home. Teenagers are developing their own characters and interests during the high school years, and big amounts of school work limit us in doing so outside of school. They get tired and stressed out and along with the preparation for tests and exams, homework piles up on top, creating more harm than good. If 6-8 hours of school is not enough to educate a student, the school should be responsible. After a long schoolday, the student comes home not even being able to spend valuable time with his or hers family. Many conflicts arise from issues such as not enough interaction between parents and kids. Excessive school work causes stress, stress leads to depression, depression leads to suicide. Such consequences are unavoidable if this continues. Teachers simply don't understand the weight homework puts on students.
There should be no homework for high school students

Homework is of the utmost priority of a student's well-being throughout life. It is from this homework that they learn to utilize analytical, verbal, and writing skills that are necessary to succeed in life. The amount of homework given to the student varies from teacher to teacher and subject to subject depending on the work that is required. It is here that a student learns to prioritize what is most important based on several factors (e.g. the amount of homework, the grade in the class, the class with the harder concepts). Prioritizing is also key to being able to properly balance life. The problem is not the amount of homework, but rather the ability to prioritize.
Philosophy is not meant to be applied to everyday life.

1. Your are not arguing that philosophy is not meant to be applied to everyday life, with exceptions. It is that philosophy is not meant to be applied to everyday life. Period. There is definitely a contradiction, unless yours isn't meant to be applied either. Everything else: Correct me if I'm wrong, but from your arguments it almost seems like you are thinking of "philosophies" as nothing more than quotes about life. They're more than that though. By definition, a philosophy is an attitude, or a theory. They are everything we have to guide us in life. Without them, we would be animals. Wandering around following only our instincts and immediate desires. Is that what humanity is supposed to be like? Many attempts are made to simplify entire attitudes toward life into a few sentances or so, and although they often end up quite poetic and thought provoking, in the end it is a persons own philosophies that will be most useful to them, and yes, those are philosophies. Even if we are talking about philosophical quotes, they can still be, to a reasonable extent, "applicable or relevant" (Apply, definition 2). Saying a well thought out philosophical quote is not at all relevant to life, in any way, would be a ridiculous notion. philosophy definition attitude definition http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Philosophy is not meant to be applied to everyday life.

Ha! That's beautiful. I love this new philosophy of not applying philosophy to everyday life. So that means I shouldn't apply your philosophy either, right? But then that means It's fine to apply philosophy to my life again since I'm ignoring yours. But then that means I could also apply your philosophy again, and what do we end up with? That's right, an endless loop of contradiction. But anyway, putting that little problem aside... As you said, philosophies are guiding principles. Although most don't work under every situation, there are actually some that do apply all the time. The main philosophy I go by is "Do what results in the most happiness, both for you and others, both now and in the future". If that fails, you're doing it wrong. I doubt anyone could follow that very well, but hey, it doesn't hurt to try. With more inconsistent philosophies, it is often a matter of interpretation, or what you can take away from them. Take for an example your Confucius quote. You're not delving quite deep enough into it for it to make complete sense. Say, for example, you have a friend who wants you to attend a religious coming of age ceremony or something. Of course, you wouldn't want anyone to attend yours, because you don't even celebrate it. You have to put yourself completely in their shoes and think more along the lines of if you would want your friends to respect your beliefs, be proud of your accomplishments, and celebrate with you when you're happy, or something like that. Most people would.
Philosophy is not meant to be applied to everyday life.

"Philosophy" is defined as: A theory or attitude held by a person or organization that acts as a guiding principle for behavior. In other words, "Philosophy" is a generalization describing vaguely how individuals should act. Because it's a generalization, no given philosophy can ever be right, and is thus going to be misinterpreted by individuals. For example, Common philosophical phrase: ""What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others;" -- Confucius But what this quote fails to accept is that everyone is an individual with different values and beliefs. Keeping this in mind would in no way help guide someone in a diverse culture. Source(s): http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Abortion

R1: psychological effects You say there are problems, false; Having an abortion does not cause an increase of pshycological problems but having a baby does. (1) serious mental problems in abortion are rare and he open just as often as when giving birth. (2) Abortion=\= phyk problems baby does. R2: life and conception "Persons . . . are members of a social community that shapes and values them, and personhood must be defined in terms of interactions and relationships with others." (3) A fetus is non of that. Also a fetus has no rights: The human embryo in America has no human rights until born. (5) Also you call it murder, definition: Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. (5) The key word is unlawful, abortion is lawful so it doesn't fit the definition. R3: Adoption Adoption is not another option 10% of kids went unadopted. (6) Not an option. According to your numbers over 1 million kids would go into this line of 10% and would overflow the system. Also 1/3 of kids abused are from adopted parents. (7) Not an option. R4; effects of abortion I have proven it is safer then birth refer to arguments above Vote pro sources http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (1) http://m.plannedparenthood.org... (2) http://www.godandscience.org... (3) http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (4) http://www.google.com... (5) http://www.chacha.com... (6) http://encyclopedia.adoption.com... (7)
Abortion

Abortion is a surgical or medical procedure that ends a pregnancy by destroying and removing the developing child from the uterus. Many young women decide to have an abortion because they believe it will be a quick resolution to a difficult situation. In a survey taken in the first few weeks after the abortion, between 40 and 60 percent of women questioned reported negative reactions. Within 8 weeks after their abortions, 55% expressed guilt and 31% had regrets about their decision. Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life. No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. United States there are approximately 1.37 million abortions every year which comes out to 3,700 abortions every day.
Abortion

C1: prohibition of abortion does not work Ron Paul said outlawing abortion would work like prohibition and not work. (1) Now this being said, now I need to prove those laws didn't work: Alcohol fail: The prohibition of alcohol was meant to relieve an economic burden and decrease taxes and lower the amount of users, these policies failed. (2) Although alcohol consumption decreased in early prohibition it rose right after. (2) Organized crime got a major boost during prohibition. (3) A violent black market emerged. (3) It did not end alcohol it rose the amount of bad alcohol, even ethanol consumption. (3) Prohibition does 2 things: 1. Doesn't affect how many people do it 2. Make the practice makes more dangerous Prohibition would fail. C2: right to abortion Roe v wade gave the right to women to have an abortion. (4) 70,000 women die each year due to illegal abortions, human rights activist endorse legalizing abortion. (5) C3; Abortion is safer then birth Women are 14 times more likely to die from birth then abortion. (6) Now, a new study contends that having a legal abortion is safer than carrying a baby to term. (7) Abortion is safer than child birth in America. (8) I musty conclude, I will add arguments later vote pro. http://www.dailypaul.com... (1) http://www.cato.org... (2) http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (3) http://law2.umkc.edu... (4) http://www.alternet.org... (5) http://www.reuters.com... (6) http://health.msn.com... (7) http://mommyish.com... (8)
All who claim to be Pro Life must oppose capital punishment and abortion

When questioning whether a person is genuine which was clearly Pros intent, you can only do so by understanding what they mean, not by attacking the technical definition of what they say. That is the only thing Pro tried to establish in round one, which still failed. I am sorry Pro does not accept my dictionary definition of Pro Life. Every dictionary has the same definition. I would provide more if not for the 1,000 character limit Pro chose for this debate. Pro asserts that I think everybody should be able to define each term for themselves. No, that is why we have dictionaries, to ensure that we are all speaking the same language. Pro seems to be the one trying to change that. “One is either for human Life as a Right, or thinks human life is a privilege granted by Law or society” Since Pro Life refers to abortion, this stance is based on protecting the life of the innocent, not the guilty which capital punishment addresses. These positions are honest and not contradictory.
All who claim to be Pro Life must oppose capital punishment and abortion

My opponent seems to prefer ad populem to reason. The idea that "people think it "means" something, is irrelevant. The fact that my opponent could not find something is again irrelevant. Ergo, discounting the ad populem as fallacious and my opponents inability to find as a mere statement of his work. We are left with the only objective standard, that of contradiction, stated in the paraphrase of perjury. Perhaps my opponent thinks we each should define all terms for ourselves? I also reject his source, Pro Life is two words, and no definition may contain the term being defined in same. My opponent's "desire" that it were so, does not make it so. One is either for human Life as a Right, or thinks human life is a privilege granted by Law or society for which we should be thankful. Those who support abortion because a fetus isn't human take a position not connected to pro life.
All who claim to be Pro Life must oppose capital punishment and abortion

My opponent has either badly misinterpreted the term “Pro life” or is simply trying to affirm that Pro life does not or should not mean what people think it does.Pro Life: "opposing the legal right to obtain an abortion"http://www.yourdictionary.com... In every dictionary I visit the definition is the same, and I could not find anything to the contrary in the site Pro provided. Pro life is clearly referring to abortion, not capital punishment. If Pro is trying to argue that the definition does not, or should not mean what people think it does then his argument would still be irrelevant. This debate is clearly about the alleged disingenuousness of those that claim to be Pro life yet also Pro Capital Punishment. The level of disingenuousness of those that make these claims can only be judged by how they define Pro life, not how Pro defines it. It is clear that the vast majority of people believe this to be the definition when stating these positions.
All who claim to be Pro Life must oppose capital punishment and abortion

Thank you. Pro Life shall mean all who hold to the Pro Life position as outlined on ProLife.org, (RTL), or from State or local cites. "The mission … promote and defend the right of life to all ...from fertilization to natural death." When an individual, or entity, makes two statements, both of which cannot be true, one need not establish which is false to establish that the individual is disingenuous. (Paraphrase of perjury Law) It is by this principle that I shall establish, all who support Pro Life must oppose capital punishment. RTL GOALS 1.Reverse Wade 2.Actively oppose euthanasia and/or Right to Die legislation 3.Promote human dignity 4.Promote a change in legal status of the Fetus to person-hood. Suicide and euthanasia are death by means of human assistance. Capital punishment involves human assistance in terminating life by other than natural causes. Thus, Pro Life adherents oppose any and all assisted death. Opposition to assisting in Human death IS the sine qua non.
All who claim to be Pro Life must oppose capital punishment and abortion

The rules here are simple: 1. The bible is not a source 2. Pro/Con/Pro because the burden is on the affirmative. 3. Any logical fallacy employed in any argument need only be identified (cite the logical fallacy) as fallacious reasoning to be refuted. http://owl.english.purdue.edu... http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
Creation vs Abiogenesis

Hello, and welcome to my debate with GodChoosesLife in Creation vs Abiogenesis. 1st round: Accepting/ Stating claim2nd round: Arguments ONLY3rd and 4th round: Arguments/Rebuttals5th round: Final Rebuttals and ConclusionMy claim: Abiogenesis is a more probable model for the origin of life than Creation model. Rules: 1: Don't break the rules. 2: Use sources if you can. 3: DO NOT BREAK THE RULES.
Be it resolved that, Animals should be used for testing.

Greetings, I understand you completely, hurting animals in cruel and sick ways is something we do not tolerate in our society yet when it happens in laboratories it's suddenly justified. However, one must understand why testing on animals is a necessary evil. The strongest point I have to make is the health and safety of human users of new medicine, body products, and other chemicals which could potentially be dangerous when in contact with human metabolism. If we did not test our products on other live beings some side-effects could not be spotted and that could lead to a death of human users which is something that companies cannot allow to happen both for moral and financial reasons. Furthermore, human life is worth more than that of an animal, all live is equal but it's personal qualities that have worth in our world and human qualities surpass animal ones. Animal experiments are only justified if they provide a benefit that is unable to be gained by any other way.
Be it resolved that, Animals should be used for testing.

Good day, The resolution before us today is Be it resolved that animals should be used for testing. As the only speaker on our team I strongly disagree, Here are a few reasons why. 1. Animals can hurt and feel just as we can how would you like to be covered in chemichales and used for horrible expirements. 2. Animals are a valuable part of our environment and wthout them we will surely decline in environmental help. 3. We are doing it for our own luxury We are tourturing many animals for hand creams,Bath and body products,and many other items for our own convenience. This is unjust and unhumane. 4. We treat animals as if we are less than them. We are all equal in fact humans share 30% of our DNA with lettuce weare all interconnected without bee's which are considered animals pollinate flowers. Without that we would have no food. Torturing an animal is unhumane and unjust. Believeing that this is ok shows how truely corrupted our society actually is. And that is why we strongly oppose