BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Technology is destroying children's education.

In my opinion being the age that I am (14) that kids my age are not learning because of technology. Texting for example has caused kids to not be able to spell the most common words because they always use acronyms and most of them don't even know what an acronym is nor do they know how to spell it! Technology is suppose to enhance learning and instead of kids learning from the internet which all the answers are at there finger tips they use the technology to play games etc. I'm not sure what you mean by black hole but the only black hole I see is in everyone's brain from the non consistency of learning which in turn we are suppose to be the future. So imagine the type of future it will be as technology is forever changing and all we are concerned with is the new IPHONE that comes out which most don't use it for its real operational functions anyway because they never take the time to learn. So yes technology is hurting us kids in the world. In schools there no more chalk boards but instead Ipads and white boards and the teachers barely know how to operate them to teach us. So how is technology helping us in school?
Technology is destroying children's education.

I define destroy as "put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it."I define technology as "machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge."Technology isn't destroying education. Look at education. Is it being destroyed by "machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge"? No. Fire is not technology, at least not in this definition. As you can see it is not technology that destroys education, but this random fire the blackness in the background caused.
Technology is destroying children's education.

Technology is a good thing. You're supposed to use technology for research and a way to learn. There is nothing wrong with using it for entertainment. The problem with children is that they abuse it. They use the technology for more entertainment rather than for education. Therefore they're not learning as much as they actually could if they used the technology for educational purposes. I myself am only 14 years old, but I use the technology to learn new things. For example, using my home computer I've learned how to right computer programs and I'm ONLY 14. Now the average kid this day in age use the technology for only social media such as Facebook , Twitter, and Instagram.
Technology is destroying children's education.

First of all, I didnt say that anything was wrong with technology. Technology is a good thing, even a great thing. You're saying that i was saying that technology was a bad thing when it's not a bad thing at all. Social media is a good thing too. I was saying that the average kids abuse this. Also i was saying they don't use the computer's as a way to learn anymore. If they did the children would be much smarter. You were getting off topic. Maybe you were trying to change the topic because you know I'm right. I was never saying that technology was bad. I was saying that the average child uses the technology for ONLY entertainment.
Technology is destroying children's education.

"Not all all" is pro's crucial mistake. He contradicts himself with the "sometime" he stated above.Let me state a few of computer's uses.--it can search up information within a few seconds--you can contact your teachers within a few seconds--a calendar can setup as a reminder as to what to do--online social websites can help you interact with your friends--bash into a bullies head :PIn conclusion technology can help in some ways.
Did Martin Luther King Jr impact this nation in a positive way.

I am not saying that I would discriminate based on race if I were to hire an employee. That is not what this debate is about. I believe that the policies that Mr. King shoved down the throats of many Americans did nothing to promote racial harmony. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. You claim to be a Libertarian but you debate like a Marxist. Do you seriously believe that the Civil Rights Act did anything for economic prosperity? If anything the Civil Rights Act hurt business with scores of burdensome regulations and frivolous lawsuits. Racial equality can not be achieved through government regulation. Equality is earned and there is nothing congress or even the supreme court can do to grant equality with the wave of a pen. I personally believe discrimination based on race or gender is wrong and I bet most people would agree with me on that, but I will fight to the death to preserve property rights and the right to refuse service.
Did Martin Luther King Jr impact this nation in a positive way.

Since this debate is about Micheal Kings inpact on America, I will focus my argument on that. I believe the rules and regulations that Micheal King advocated for (mainly the Civil Rights Act of 1964) are not only unconstitutional, but a threat to our personal liberty. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
Did Martin Luther King Jr impact this nation in a positive way.

I will however continue and provide my own case as stated in the debate outlines. So as stated in the outline of this debate, we are going to examine if Martin Luther King JR, had a positive impact on this country. Did he offer progression. I will now offer some contentions to support this. Contention 1His personal sacrificeMartin Luther King JR or Michael King was born January 15, 1929. Later his farther decided to change his name to the name of a great German reformer in the 16th century(Martin Luther). King was actively involved in Civil rights movements all throughout his career. Blacks at this time were suffering severe discrimination and King was hated by a lot of people. Even in the face of hatred, he still preached equality and change in this nation. He even won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 because of this. In 1948 he Graduated from Morehouse College and enters Crozer Theological Seminary. He was ordained to the Baptist ministry on February 25, 1948 at the early age of 19. In 1955 he received his Doctorate of Philosophy in Systematic Theology from Boston University. His entire life was dedicated to the ministry and equality. The most memorable march was the protest and march in Washington on August 28, 1963. A quarter of whom were white. Kings speeches had started to have a drastic change on this nation and even some white people began to realize that a change was necessary. It was here he delivered his famous speech "I have a dream". This speech rattled the foundations on which America was grounded and from that moment changes started to occur. Without his personal sacrifice to the ministry and the equal rights movement that he dedicated his life to, all of the changes that occurred because of that may not have ever happened. It was primarily that speech, that shook America up. It was one of the most powerful speeches ever delivered and to this day, still holds that title. Contention 2The impact of the equal rights movement. Because of the stand he took and the sacrifice that King gave, we now see the effects of this today. Even in corporate America you can not hire or deny work because of someones skin color. Often time if someone says something racist, it can ruin their career. We as a Nation have embraced the hope of equality and continue to run with it. When he gave the "I have a dream" speech, the echo of that speech extended throughout time. It is became more than just skin color but helped us understand not to discriminate against people because of religion, sexual orientation, and any other reason you can think of. It helped this nation embrace tolerance which is something it was greatly lacking before hand. In Closing. We can clearly see the positive impact DR King has had on this nation. He has helped changed this nation for the better, and it is because of his sacrifice that equality is as accepted as it is today. . http://www.bbc.co.uk...http://www.infoplease.com...http://www.nps.gov...http://www.nobelprize.org...
Did Martin Luther King Jr impact this nation in a positive way.

First of all His name wasn't Martin Luther. It was Michael. His father changed his name and his son's name. He never legally changed his name and he lived and died as Michael King. While working on his dissertation for his doctoral degree at Boston University, he heavily plagiarized from another author who had done research on a subject similar to King's. An academic committee later found that over half of King's work was plagiarized, yet would not revoke his doctorate. As King was dead by this time, the committee ruled that revoking the title would serve no purpose. King's famous "I Have A Dream" speech was also not his own. He stole it from a sermon by Archibald Carey, a popular black preacher in the 1950's. King was under FBI surveillance until he died due to his ties with communist organizations throughout the country. King accepted money from the organizations to fund his movements. In return, King had to appoint communist leaders to run certain districts of his SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference), who then could project their communist ideas to larger audiences. One of King's closest friends, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, wrote a book in 1989 in which he talked about King's obsession with white prostitutes, Often hiring two to three prostitutes at a time and occasionally he would brutally beat them. King would also use church donations to have drunken sex parties, yet he was married with four children. It makes me ill hearing prominent Americans such as Mitt Romney and Scott Walker praising Michael Kings work. Had they the slightest clue what this man has really done, they would not be so enthusiastic about MLK day. Perhaps it is time for Americans to face the facts about this fraud.
Did Martin Luther King Jr impact this nation in a positive way.

I would like to challenge BrighamYoungConservative on whether Martin Luther King JR had a positive impact on this country. Seeing as how he seems not believe so. Definitions we will be discussing. Nation - United States of America Martin Luther King Jr - Famous equal rights activist whom most of us know and love Positive impact on this nation - Did the actions of Dr King impact this country and offer progression to us as a society.
Resolved: Media violence ought to be banned.

ResolutionResolved: Media violence ought to be banned. DefinitionsMedia violence - visual portrayals of acts of physical aggression by one human or human-like character against another. [1] For the purposes of this debate, this will include movies, television, video games, the news, music, etc. Ought - should, expected to or compelled by duty or desire. [2]Ban - officially or legally prohibit. [3]StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 - RebuttalsRound 4 - Defense Citations[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2]http://www.yourdictionary.com...[3]https://www.google.com...
On Balance, the new DDO site policy reform is generally good.

I've noticed my opponent complaining vehemently over the new enforcement of site policy by the moderators. The policy can be found here:http://www.debate.org...My opponent (since the posting of the reformed policy) has been very outspoken in his opposition of the policy. Well, I would like to challenge his position. I believe that the new site policy will be generally good.My Standard BoilerplateRulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only.Round 2- Constructive Arguments only.Round 3- Free choice.Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points.Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points.Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared.I hope my opponent will accept.
On Balance, the new DDO site policy reform is generally good.

I apologize to my opponent and the voters for my forfeiture of rounds 3 and 4. I had unexpected time restraints that limited my time on DDO, as well as coming up with rebuttals/arguments for this debate. I still possess my stance that the policy is generally bad, but, as per the rules of this debate, I have already lost, and can't post arguments/rebuttals in this final round. I encourage the voters to direct the seven points they possess towards my opponent, TylerGraham95.
I think that concealed carry should not be allowed. Prove me wrong

Carrying concealed handguns are used more for criminal homicides than homicides. According to the violence policy center, For every justifiable homicide (a death caused by someone defending themselves) there were 34 innocent people killed by criminals who obtained a handgun and permit. and in 2014 eighteen states reported no justifiable homicides caused by handguns. People rarely use handguns for protection. And handguns may make someone feel safer but in reality they actually make them less safe. According to a peer reviews study someone carrying a gun for self defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault then an assault victim without a gun.
Every parent before having their first child should be required to attend parenting classes

Thank you for posting this debate. I will be arguing that parenting classes should not be required for first time parents.I would like to preface my argument my noting that I am a parent of a beautiful 4-year-old daughter, and that in fact, I did participate in parenting classes before her birth, and continue to take as active a role as possible in ensuring her healthy physical, emotional, and mental development.I believe that first-time parents who would not participate in parenting classes by choice, will not receive any benefit from being forced to do so. Good parenting is not something that can be learned through studying and listening to lectures, or by practicing diapering and feeding babies (fake or real). And certainly, first-time-parents who are forced to sit though such classes and workshops will not absorb any more than you did from your least favourite compulsory high school class. All of the information will go in one ear and out the other.Also, I read every book I could find about caring for babies, pregnancy, child development, etc. Not to mention the hours and hours that I spent participating in parenting classes and workshops. I was so excited and wanted so badly to prepare myself to be the best parent possible, but when push came to shove (literally) and I was holding my baby daughter for the first time, all of that went out the window. Good parenting in the real world is subjective, and everyone just has to do the best they can. Nothing that you learn can possibly prepare you for actually being a parent. If a parent's priority truly is to ensure the well being of their future child, they will do everything they can to prepare themselves for parenthood without any organization or government entity forcing the issue.If a future parent would not choose to prepare themselves before the child is born, what makes you think that they will make good parenting choices afterward?
Every parent before having their first child should be required to attend parenting classes

All parents should have to take parenting classes before having their fist child. This would be good for many reasons:Obviously it will prepare parents better and might improve a lot of parenting skills. Experts believe that over 20% of Australian parents are unfit. So if we say a 1/4 of the population are parents, that would be 22 million divided by four = 5.5million. @0% of 5.5 million is 1 million and 100,000. That is alraming. Imagine how many kids are being raised bad. This would have a huge chance of decreasing and it might give many kids a better and higher educated life.
Horses Should be Used Widely in the US

Calling nuclear power "not a good source of energy," is rather ridiculous. Not only is nuclear power a more environmentally friendly solution, despite not being renewable, which I did not claim it to be, but the chance of a major meltdown is not likely. While it has occurred in the past, three times to be exact, safety has improved, and as long as profits are not prioritized, a disaster will not happen. . http://www.world-nuclear.org... Nuclear energy is a safe, environmentally friendly, and efficient, My opponent mentioned that in case of a drought horses could be eaten, however not only is the thought of eating horses unappealing to many Americans, but the slaughter of horses has just been banned again in the United States! The website my opponent has provided is simply not correct. . http://www.npr.org... . http://www.horsechannel.com... Not only is the chance of an EMP reaching the US unlikely, but making them requires a high level of skill and a considerable budget. Sure, anyone can make a device that emits the same pulse, but not at the level that will disable sophisticated electronic equipment. Calling Americans "too comfortable anyway," is an arbitrary statement, and while it is true that Americans are very overweight and "comfortable," this only damages your case, as it will be difficult to convince Americans to ride horses. My opponent went on to suggest that solar cells produce Sulfur Hexafluoride, however solar power is not used in electric cars. I'm rather confused as to where my opponent got this idea from. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to show adequate evidence for horses being widely used in the United States. Although he has suggested several uses for horses, he has not been able to defend them, and his points regarding alternatives, such as electric cars, were not valid.
Horses Should be Used Widely in the US

In this debate I will be arguing that (domesticated) horses should be used for various purposes (besides things like parades, tourism, and mounted police) in the United States today. I will argue that they should be used for transportation, deliveries (of goods that are not too heavy), and perhaps some other stuff. I hate doing this, but I accept the Burden of Proof during this debate. First Round is for Acceptance. Definition of Horse: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
British Waterways should derestrict stretches of water where high speeds cause minimal disruption

With many thanks for andyh for his rebuttal, I should like to confirm that I agree that there are many more walkers, anglers, etc. than there are speedboat users on Britain's waterways. Indeed, it is a wonder anyone buys a speedboat at all in this country given that the maximum speed limit is a pathetically pedestrian 4mph. Also, I realise that there are many inexperienced boaters on our lakes and rivers, though they are usually only to be found in hire (rental) boats with a limited maximum speed of 5mph, so the danger they can cause to themselves and others is, similarly, limited. That's why I propose a scheme similar to that adopted in Germany for their highways. On autobahns, limited stretches are derestricted so that cars can travel at any speed. However, if drivers are deemed to be travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions, whether they be traffic- or weather-related, they will be prosecuted for dangerous driving. So, while most of the British waterways will retain their speed limits, I merely propose that, given favourable conditions, speedboat owners should be allowed to open the throttle to exploit their crafts' full potential on certain stretches of water. Thank you.
British Waterways should derestrict stretches of water where high speeds cause minimal disruption

Thankyou to Pro for beginning a rather unique debate.I will keep my arguments as concise as possible and do my best to provide a decent Con.I will develop, explain and expand as well as summarize in round 2 :)Main lines of argument1. Pro has crucially overlooked one of the main reasons for a 4mph blanket speed limit. While he indentifies damage to wildlife and the environment and disturbance through noise' all as being valid reasons, he overlooks the issue of safety. The waterways are open to all, and many rent holiday boats and enjoy what the waterways have to offer - the experienced and the not so experienced. The 4mph speed limit trys to keep everyone as safe as possible. While you might be able to find stretches of water where you can reduce the impact on environment, noise etc, there will always be the possibility of other (sometimes many) boats, and it would be irresponsible for British Waterways to merely rely upon the aptitude of boaters. I therefore argue that a blanket 4mph speedlimit is necessary to ensure the safety of all boaters. 2. I quote "you are on the great inland waterways of Britain to enjoy a slower pace of life." http://www.canalcuttings.co.uk... In his humerous opening Pro seems to contend this, by implying through his use of the 'old couple' that perhaps these views are dated & conservative. I would argue they are not. British Waterways are synonymous with tranquillity for most users. While in some stretches of water, you may not find an old and easily angered couple, you may come across other boat users who are enjoying the slow pace of life, and relaxation the waterways provide. By increasing the speed limit, or at least taking away some restrictions, the waterways would be losing something valuable. The waterways provide people - I argue - with a place to escape from the rush and high tempo of ordinary on shore stressful life. I believe the majority would want to keep this slow pace on our waterways. 3. Finally, the waterways are full of holiday makers at certain times of the year. This inevitably means a large number of inexperienced boaters. Returning to point 1, the speed limit therefore keeps everyone as safe as possible, especially when there may be a large number of boats in the system. While fast boaters may be annoyed and be inconvenienced by the restrictions, I believe they in are a minority, and most would want the blanket slow pace preserved.I look forward to your closing round :)