BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should we restrict the use of cigarettes and alcohol in media commercials and films

you all watched super heroes films when you all were young, havent you? i have and i have tried to immitate every character in it regardless weather he is the hero or not think a small kid watching a film and he saw a character smoking a ciggarate, wont he try to immitate it because they are kids. they dont know how corrupted is the present society. rescent statistics show that ciggarete companies spend billions on actors. but why? simple..... isnt it advertising....they need the small kids to come into the ciggarettes mafia because they know they are easily addictable than a grown up man who understands the society.. every ciggarete pack cotains "please dont use it until you are 21" but its because they need to get away with the fact that they are providing harmful things to children. but their main target is children. And the other thing is ALCOHOl.......have you ever noticed that every alcohol bottle is packed so nicely that anybody will buy it because of the outer appearance (specially kids). so government should take neccasary actions toward these concepts to save the next young generations Agree?????
Is it right Korean government raise normal tobacco price 80%

R1: It is very, very reasonable. if it makes people quit smoking, (that it will) it has made the Korean population happier. All smokers at least say they want to give up, so they are being done a massive (I emphasise that) favour. R2: Trapping smokers like your second suggestion is very unreasonable. It keeps public health the same... English corrections: smoking is a problem: imabench is not called imbench. (remember to put 'a' before all non-possessive, singular nouns). Making 'smoking' compound with 'is' is completely correct, but with a few exceptions (what's, that's) that is usually only used in speech. an item, a country: I recommend you avoid using one for anything except for the number itself. Use a, or an if the following word starts with a consonant. Grows up is generally a term used only to say the growing up of an animal. Rises, or just grows, is a better idea. though: spelling is difficult in English. There is a very low chance the word will be spelt in the same way as it is pronounced.
Is it right Korean government raise normal tobacco price 80%

Pro said smoking's problem. I agree with that. But, my major point here I want to argue is how one country regulate one item of personal preference(whether it's good for health or not) at one day. Think about it, If one country decide to escalate all car products price 80% higher to decrease environment pollution and stuck car in road problem just a day. and Yes, the price goes up, tax income for government grows up, but it's not a clearly reasonable to increase a product price that much I think. It could be gradual price ascent with small percentage for a month and the price goes twice up at the year later. Please keep reminding that my point of this debate is "increase a product price 80% at a day". Still Glad you became my first debate opponent tho.
Is it right Korean government raise normal tobacco price 80%

A1: Smoking is a real problem - it causes illnesses and is very, very, very, very, very (If I could be bothered I would use the whole character limit) annoying. People have the right to wreck their own lives, but not others. It is the best way to gradually discourage and therefore increase law enforcement on smoking. A2: It will be good for the economy, as there is no worst case scenario. It helps free up slots on boats in a growing economy.
Is it right Korean government raise normal tobacco price 80%

This year, Korean government implemented tobacco price 2500won to 4500won(it's approximately 2.3dollars to 4.2dollars) . The reason the president used is that the most plausible way to decrease rate of citizens smoking further to enhance citizen health. But I think it's rude and oppressive decision to raise life goods as much as almost twice. First time to debate and not have some eloquence and fluency. Any English correction is welcomed. Allowance for both to have freedom to argue & insist but hope to not use some bad sarcasm. Glad to have debate with you :)
The United States needs to set a concrete goal to cut CO2 emissions

First of all, global warming is real and the evidence is everywhere. The summer arctic sea ice on the arctic ocean has been melted away to the lowest extent on record. The top eleven warmest years on record have all been in the last 13 years. The intergovernmental panel on climate change for the united nations has already acknowledged that global warming is a dire threat, but the United States will not. If it is not immediately stopped, global warming will cause deadly droughts which will cause countries to fight for scarce resources. There is already a drought in Georgia and African countries such as Somalia have been driven into chaos by their lack of resources. The list of problems that global warming will cause is long: wider spread of disease and mosquito population growth, stronger hurricanes, powerful countries starting war because of lack of resources, even an end to human civilization in the near future. I can go on for a long time about the numerous threats global warming poses. The U.S is the biggest contributor to global warming and it is they who need to act most of all, but the current administration is not willing to set a concrete mark on how much it will reduce CO2 emissions. Without a concrete goal, the administration is free to do as it pleases and ignore the threat completely. The United States must act now and it must make big steps to stop this threat to humanity.
Brains (pro) vs. Brawns (con)

I would like to start this debate by introducing myself as both brainy and brawny. This being said, I highly prefer my brainy side. Why do I prefer this side? Because humans main goal is knowledge. Don't believe me? Look in your hand. What's there? A phone? A mouse? Maybe even a laptop! These are devices that we take advantage of today, but we couldn't begin to imagine these if we never focused on brains. Checkmate.
Brains (pro) vs. Brawns (con)

You do not need to use any rebuttals in your concluding statement, as I will not be posting an argument in this round. You clearly have the upper hand. Thank you for this debate. Although you are clearly the superior, I feel as though I have become better at debating through this argument. Anyone can read through this argument and see my improvement. Now that that's been said, and I feel that this was already implied, I concede.
Brains (pro) vs. Brawns (con)

My opponent is providing more evidence for his claims, but they're still not accounting for the bigger picture:1. Brawn is crucial to the exhibition of intellectual pursuitsWhile there are great minds like scientists and philosophers that use their brains rather than their brawn to contribute to society, it's ultimately brawn that creates the environment required for such minds to flourish. This is a variation of one of my previous arguments, but I'll be introducing new points within to differentiate it. What would all the books, all the observatories, and all the institutions of knowledge in the world be without the protection of brave men willing to go into combat with hostile elements inside and outside of our societies? What would Stephen Hawking be without the policeman enforcing the law, and the soldier protecting the nation? Without the presence of brawn, our societies and civilizations would not have time to spend on academic and intellectual pursuits like Stephen Hawking's. We can't talk about spacetime if we need to be more concerned with security. What would my brainpower be worth if there wasn't someone else fighting my battles for me? The only reason we're debating on a website is because there are brave men and women willing to fight and struggle in our place.2. My opponent's arguments are based around individual examples rather than the reality that surround usMy opponent does bring up a good example with Stephen Hawking. No one can deny his contribution to our understanding of the universe, but this is one man in a world of billions. He is an extraordinary one, yes, but no amount of inborn gifts will exempt a man from being subject to the rules and regulations of the natural world. Natural law does not simply go away with the ages, and simply because we have created a mechanized society does not mean that brawn is any less important than it was hundreds of years ago. The reality that surrounds us will not go away, and it doesn't care if you're Stephen Hawking or Average Joe. Like I said, you can't automatize survival.3. Within my arguments, I never stated that pure brawn without brains is feasible for survivalMy opponent mentioned his in argument that "pure brawn with very little brains simply cannot survive", to which I say this is true, but I never mentioned this. Speaking of which, I never actually mentioned what ratio of brains to brawn would be feasible, but I did claim that it is more important in regards to the larger society. I don't know if this was intentional misrepresentation, but I'm making sure to clarify this.
Brains (pro) vs. Brawns (con)

You are using your brain more than your brawn when arguing with me, and you are clearly doing a pretty good job at it, too. Your brawn simply does not know the facts that you have stated, because facts rest, above all, in the brain. Pure brawn with very little brains simply cannot survive. You may argue that the inverse is true, but I argue that this simply is incorrect. How do I know that this is incorrect? Stephen Hawking. For all of you who don't know who Stephen Hawking is, he is one of the greatest minds currently living on Earth, and he is paralyzed. What does this mean? This means that someone who can't use any brawn is still alive today. This being said, How many people do you know of who can't use their brains at all and are alive? That's right, none. Brains are crucial to survival, and brawn is not.
Brains (pro) vs. Brawns (con)

My opponent's argument is very much lacking, and contains no real points that I haven't disputed earlier:1. My opponent does not provide evidence for their claimMy opponent does not provide any evidence for their claims at all. In my arguments, I use reasoning and logic as evidence since this is more of a debate of ideas rather than fact, but my opponent does nothing to justify their claims than contradict mine. The Burden of Proof is upon my opponent when he contradicts my claim, and the Burden of Proof is upon myself when I contract my opponent's claim. This obligation to provide evidence or reasoning for a claim is not being followed equally here.2. Instinct is a factor as to why humans and other animals can find ways to kill each otherMy opponent has some substance when they state "If we couldn't think of how to kill the animal then the animal would sooner kill us" (sic), but does it really take a PhD to find out what kills something? No, and this is observed through nature, such as when a wolf bites down on the neck of its prey. Does it really know that cutting blood flow to the brain means certain death? No, and rather it is an instinct created through thousands of years of evolution. Animals don't study anatomy, they do what comes naturally. Their strength is at play when they hunt and kill for the most part, the rest is natural selection playing its role.
Brains (pro) vs. Brawns (con)

You don't need very much brawn to accomplish any of this, really. Without our brains, we wouldn't have a chance to use our brawn. If we couldn't think of how to kill the animal then the animal would sooner kill us. Humans are the fastest growing species, and that's partially because we use our brains more than our brawn (at least, most of us do).
Brains (pro) vs. Brawns (con)

I have found that the counter-argument is not sound in that it does these things:1. It does not actually refute my previous argumentsIt builds upon my opponent's ideas rather than refutes my contentions. Most still stand unchallenged. In the instances that they were challenged (i.e., "[y]ou can have a relatively small amount of brawn and a large amount of brains, and still [do the things listed]..."), there was no evidence given as to why my opponent is right and I am wrong.2. The quote used is not sourced, and is too specific to be of much useThe quote, stated by Stasavraam333, does not cite anything to prove that the statement is in fact true. Not to mention, that the quote used is far too specific to contribute much to the argument. While traps may have been used, and are an example of rational thinking being used to increase efficiency, it fails to look at the bigger picture.Once the animal is trapped, who would haul it back to camp? Who would protect the kill site from potential predators? Who would drive off scavengers, who could follow them to camp? There's only so much intellectual plotting and engineering one can do before they eventually have to rely on their muscles rather than their minds. It's a consequence of competing for resources in the animal kingdom.One can talk about how we can engineer machines to ease our work, how we can reason to avoid conflict, but it's too idealistic to think that these things will always work, or that they excuse us from the terrestrial realities that exist (and always will.) You can't reason with the tiger, you can't engineer a substitute for all labor, and you can't automatize survival. This is simply how it is, and why brawn is especially important in the grand scheme of our evolution and existence in this world.
Brains (pro) vs. Brawns (con)

To refute your argument, all the brawn in the world doesn't matter without brains. You can have a relatively small amount of brawn and a large amount of brains, and still cut down the tree and manufacture the table that you stated. This being said, you can have a relatively small amount of brains and a large amount of brawn, and neither come up with the means to cut down the tree nor be able to manufacture the table. As Stasavraam333 said in his comment to this debate, " Even going back millennia, traps were often more effective at catching prey than traditional hunting, simply because you didn't need to be a warrior to work/ construct one."
Brains (pro) vs. Brawns (con)

I am also brainy, and in the process of becoming brawny, and thus I share similar insights that my opponent does. I assume that burden of proof is mutually shared, and I also assume that we may post contentions in the First Round. First, I will define what brawn and brains are:Brawn (n. ) - Muscular strengthBrain[s] (n. ) - The ability to think and reasonBoth of the definitions above were taken from Merriam-Webster's website. Now, with those two terms defined, I will begin my contentions.1. Without brawn, we wouldn't have time to use our brainsAs my opponent has stated, "Look in your hand. What's there? A phone? A mouse? Maybe even a laptop! " This is a truism. Indeed we are surrounded by a vast amount of technology created as a result of the collected knowledge of electricity, circuitry, mathematics, and computation. However, one needs to put this into perspective. We need to go back to the beginning when there was nothing but humans and the wilderness around them. Humans are no different than any other animal in the animal kingdom. We are subject to the laws of nature like anything else. We needed to hunt game in order to put food on the table, we needed to actually cut down a tree to get the lumber to make the table. What's the ultimate point here? The ultimate point is that without brawn, we wouldn't have had the opportunity to use our brains. Without our strength, we would not have been able to create our civilizations that in turn give us the opportunity to focus on using our brains. You can't be solving algorithms if you're starving to death, you can't be designing beautiful buildings they're being knocked down weekly by raiding parties. Ultimately, without the strength of men, their intelligence would never be opportuned to flourish.2. What is designed with the brain, is ultimately created by brawnGoing back to a statement in my first contention, "We needed to hunt game in order to put food on the table, we needed to actually cut down a tree to get the lumber to make the table. " This also ties into this contention due to the fact that often brainpower needs to be supplemented with brute strength for anything to get done. For example, an ingenious carpenter comes up with a new design for a table. He draws out his plans, and presents them to his colleagues. Now what? They can't just stare at the plans and wish the table into existence. They need the raw materials and labor needed to turn a tree into a table. Anything that man designs needs to be built, and materials need to be processed in order to build the products. The computer you're typing on was drawn up in some office, but it was created by another person's labor. The materials were mined up by a miner somewhere, and probably shipped via boat with an entire crew of sailors. Without the brawn of workers and other personnel, the designs would be nothing more than drawings and ideas. With the brawn of workers, these designs become real, and they affect the world in a substantial manner. You can't just have brains without brawn, just like you can't have theory without action.
Theism is a More Rational World-view than Atheism

I disagree with the assertion that "theism unlike deism also implies religion". Theism means one believes in a God who one knows the mind of. Many deists believe that they know the mind of the God they believe in. Therefore, my defence of theism does not have to include a defence of deism. I also would like to ask OP to provide a small amount of burden of proof in not just contesting the reasons I have for why it is more reasonable to be a theist than an atheist, but also to explain why he thinks atheism is more rational than theism. Now, onto the debate. The first reason I believe theism to be a more rational world-view than atheism is that theism provides a reason why our universe came into being from literally nothing. Cosmologists agree that there was nothing at one point in our universe.[1] But that raises the question of how anything came to be from that nothingness. Belief in God (a transendent, non-physical being) provides a simple and rational explanation for how that happened in the Big Bang. The second reason I have for believing theism is more rational than atheism is that theism makes sense of why the universe can produce conscious, intelligent creatures like you and I. When you see a map, you know that it is designed to provide a plan for something, and the universe has had such a plan even in the opinion of well-known people of science, like the former "Astronomer Royal", Fred Hoyle.[2] I am not trying to appeal to authority here, but am simply saying such a view of the universe is respected in the field of science even though many scientists today unfortunately believe in naturalism. That should tell you something. The final reason I believe theism is more rational than atheism is that theism makes sense of why there are objective moral values and duties in the World. A moral or ethical value is true because it's sensed to be so, and remains part of peoples values regardless of where they are brought up or what have you. Values like love, kindness, etc, are universally sensed to be good. Any arguments against us having moral senses can be also used against us having physical senses, the impulses of wanting to do good or love people are so strong. Since it can be argued that there exist at least some objective moral values, it follows some ultimate thing would have to exist who has similarly objective, unchanging, good values. This is what many people refer to as "God." Footnotes [1] http://www.abc.net.au... [2]http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...
The ethics of Male Genital Mutilation:

Which confirms my side of the argument. Why? Because all three of these are used to justify Female Genital Mutilation as well. Clenliness and hygeine for example:"In some communities, the external female genitalia are considered dirty and ugly and are removed, ostensibly to promote hygiene and aesthetic appeal." {1}Health is another excuse, and I would have my opponent know that the Muslims claim there are health benefits to Female Genital Mutilation as well. {2}Claiming that circumcision increases pleasure is just absurd, the foreskin is highly errogenous and vital to male sexual pleasure, the British Journal of Urology states:"The amount of tissue loss estimated in the present study is more than most parents envisage from pre-operative counselling. Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis."Now that we are done refuting my opponents claims, I will make my argument as to why the Circumcision of anyone under 18 without medical necessity should be banned:I. BODILY AUTONOMY:Parents do not have the right to cut healthy body parts off of their baby, Milton Friedman states:"We do not believe in the right of the parents to do whatever they will with their children- to beat them, murder them, or sell them into slavery. Children are responsible individuals in embryo. They have ultimate rights of heir own and are not simply the play-things of their parents." {4} II. PROPERTY RIGHTS:Our Constitution, in the 5th Ammendment, states:"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."Last I checked that babies foreskin is his property- and cutting it off violates his rights. III. CONSENT:A baby, or a child, is legally incapable of giving informed consent- therefore, circumcision is sexual assault. {1}. http://www.unfpa.org...{2}. https://islamqa.info...{3}. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...{4}. "Free to Chose," by Milton and Rose Friedman, Chapter 1.