BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States.

Ok, I will concede the definition of on-balance and go with yours. I agree that it means with all things considered and equally weighed. However, I once again offer up my definition of positive being to be admitting of no doubt or irrefutable fact (American Heritage second College edition) I offer a source for my definition, my opponent does not therefore we must go with my definition. in his point 3 of his rebuttal I would just like to say, perhaps there is something wrong with that area, perhaps there is a depressed state of being, a poor culture there, I do not know. However, I do know that social networking sites may have contributed but have not been the SOLE cause of these suicides because suicide comes from a state of prolonged depression and there is counseling for this and perhaps these kids/teens you speak of needed it. Also in response in to his point 4 in the rebuttal. he says Tabloids expose celebrities and that we as common people must not. Well, I am sorry but I thought this was America, We are all entitled to same rights and if the celebrities rights are violated as you claim than ours as common people are allowed to be. National Inquirer does a good job of doing both. his point 7 um ok you use a statistic without a source I'm pretty sure that's not legitimate at all. I use a statistic with a source. The teen audience only accounts for 12% of the population on this sites (mashable.com) His point 8 he has no source again and so it must be striken from the vote. Point 6 he has no source for hackers. Where as it is a known fact that you can set privacy settings and prevent yourself from giving out personal information. . With social networking sites people need to be responsible if you're choosing not to be safe then you need to accept the consequences of your actions. Or perhaps if they are just to unwise to be safe than they should not be using them in general. He drops my economy still and therefore it must be flowed across. He dropped my extension on Democracy/voting/political process whatever you wish to call it so it must be flowed across. His point 5 is something of moraling life and dignity over the things I mention. He states elections happen every four years, this is true. And if this is well true than wouldn't you want more information available to you about the candidate? So you can hopefully get a better feel of life for the next four years? Well You get this via the social networking site. I will fall back on my sources fox news and msnbc.com So, I urge an affirmative ballot based on the economy, political process, and ability to prevent things outweigh the negatives the con presents through suicides and online tabloids of peoples life. In conclusion vote affirmative on the resolution *note it is with the definitions i provided which had a source and must be flowed across* Resolved: that with all things considered social networking sites have had irrefutable factual impacts on the United States. Thank you
Resolved: On balance, social networking websites have a positive impact on the United States.

[I will start by attacking my opponent's case, then moving on to rebuild my case.] The first argument I make on my opponent's case is that "on balance" has already been defined in the round, the definition I present comes from as many sources as possible to provide a clearer definition for the debate therefore you disregard his definition of "on balance" and look to mine and through mine you see that my cons on my side of the case will outweigh his pros in the end. Also, he provides a confusing definition of positive in the context used the resolution as the positive referred to has nothing to do with irrefutable fact, positive is better defined in the round as "good," if you look to my opponent's definition of positive you are voting on the basis of an incorrect resolution. On his Contention 1 he states that private accounts can be made on these social networking sites, but private accounts are incredibly easy to hack; this has happened before to a number of people. Also, teens can be gulled easily by people pretending to be their age online; if one of their real-life friends has an online friend posing as a person their age they are more likely to try to be friends with the second person because their real-life friend is friends with them, therefore pulling them into a false sense of security where a sex offender or murderer could be hiding behind an account disguised as an innocent teenager. His second through fourth contentions deal with education, politics, and economic gain, but after I block his C1, you must apply my C3 that his C1 failed to block where we must value a human life above all things in the round because a person's intrinsic worth is greater than that of any earthly idea such as education, politics, and the economy. It is morally more correct to value a human life because our nation was founded on morals and losing our morals destroys the foundation of the US therefore not having a positive impact on the affirmative side whatsoever, and the affirmative does not value this at all; I therefore have the higher moral value in this round which should be the basis of your vote here. It is currently pointless to make any new arguments against C2-4 individually because, like I said, I am upholding the greater moral value on my side: human life, so you cannot consider them drops, you basically cross-apply my C3 on all of them. While the aff may argue that his plans are better for the US because they are valuable to the US, nothing can be better for the US than keeping our population alive; we were a country founded on morals, if we drop these morals we lose our essence and foundation as a nation. This is why you must look to the negative in this debate. Glad to see it's going to be a good one. (To my opponent, are you a debater? If so, LD or CX? I remember having to write this case for a public forum debate.)
Saint's Row VS. Grand Theft Auto IV

Aright, before you start confusing yourself with first 3d sandbox game. There have been several games prior to that, which use open world play, such as the legend of zelda, I don't know if you've heard of that series. The driver series, which was huge and pretty much inspired GTA to go 3D. Let us not forget Shenmue, which introduced a lot to the open world genre including day-night cycles, changing weather and great background character voicing. Just to name a couple of games prior to GTA 3 that had the "sandbox" type game style. GTA only got it's fame because it was ridiculed by the media so harshly for being based off of gang violence. Saints row is a massively underrated game that did not get nearly enough publicity in comparison to GTA. If you look at the development of the Saints Row games, they just keep getting better and better, adding more features and ways to customize your character, and vehicle as well as your choice of multiple home locations and your ability to customize those. GTA went from being able to customize vehicles and fly planes to completely taking those options away in GTA 4, then deciding to give them back, in GTA V but take away all the other aspects like driving trains, a working subway system, and online social presence in game. Rockstar just does not know how to take a base game and continue to add to it. GTA 5 could be so much better, but now that they've admitted to giving up on the single player mode all together and focus on the multiplayer you will yet again see something taken away from GTA. Guarantee GTA 6 will be online only, as they slowly rip yet another piece of what makes that game great out from under you. As for best sandbox game, I can easily list a few "sandbox" type games that are far better than even GTA V: 1. Obviously Saints Row IV 2. Just Cause 2, the map on this game that came out in 2010 is easily 4x the size of the map in GTA V 3. Metal Gear Solid 5: Phantom Pain, Easy contender for game of the year 4. Any game in the Far Cry series, I would recommend 3, but 2 and 4 area also great. Amazing story and huge open worlds they double in size as you progress. 5. Watch Dogs, it gets a lot of hate for having such a short story, but it is open world, and it does have some pretty fun side missions. 6. Dues Ex: Human Revolution, great futuristic game with a decent storyline. 7. Any Assassin's Creed game, except Unity. All have pretty amazing storylines, plus decent size sandbox maps. The list just goes on and on until I hit GTA at like maybe top 26 not even top 10.
Saint's Row VS. Grand Theft Auto IV

I can't even begin to tell you how wrong you are. GTA is DEFINITELY in the top ten of all games, if not sandbox games. "Grand Theft Auto III is considered as the most important sandbox game in video game history, as it was one of the first best-selling games to be of such a nature." (gta.wikia.com/wiki/Sandbox). That's right, Grand Theft Auto is one of the MOST important games in video game history. And about humor and laughs, GTA has that too. Players find themselves chuckling more than once throughout the game. GTA was also the first game to introduce experiencing being in a gang... But that's older, and I'm just trying to get my point across that GTA has been around for a long time, and has popular for a long time. It's also the first sandbox game to introduce 3D. So, If you want a realistic, fun, wide open sandbox game with great multiplayer, you will choose Grand Theft Auto. It is truly the best of it's kind.
Saint's Row VS. Grand Theft Auto IV

Honestly, GTA isn't the best sandbox game, it's not even top ten, especially since it's so multiplayer centered. If you truly want to escape from reality Saints row is where it's at. Most people Judge a game within their first 30 minutes of playing it, they don't look whole scope. That's why amazing games like saint's row, and Just Cause 2 get overlooked. GTA V has no Single Player replay value at all. Saints Row offers New Game +. It also has an expansive map with territories and businesses you can own that offer you in game benefits. I said it once I\ll say it a thousand times, GTA V has 0 replay ability, Multiple times after a half hour of playing I'll find myself bored with just driving around, doing repetitive missions robbing the same stores, doing the same things day in day out. Saints row 4 is a much better value for your money, and you'll have a lot more laughs
Saint's Row VS. Grand Theft Auto IV

I think that most people would prefer grand theft auto, because they want to experience a very realistic game. In GTA, it feels as if you are living a second life where you can do anything, and it feels at if you are venting. If you want to play a game where nothing could even be compared to real life, then play Saint's row. People who have been with GTA since the beginning may also prefer GTA too, but we all know that GTA might just be the best sandbox game.
Saint's Row VS. Grand Theft Auto IV

I understand your confusion, I myself have been a fan of both series for years now. I look at it this way, they are 2 separate entities, GTA 5 has a decent size world, with a fairly more realistic view in the story mode trying to make it more and more realistic as the series progresses. Going from focusing around memorizing cheat codes, to barely using them at all, to pretty much an online multiplayer only type of game. Now let's look at the Saints row franchise, first time I played saints row I only did because it ran smoother on my pc than GTA. I liked the customization from the get go, and the boss battles, real "crackdown" type feel. Something different. Now when it comes to Saints Row 4, I think that the story mode is where it beats GTA V hands down much more entertaining, I loved how they themed a lot of the levels after classic video games, and the introduction of the dubstep cannon in the 1950s era part was amazing. Unlike GTA V they opted for less realistic graphic approach, more blatant cartoonish violence and A LOT more sex appeal. I am not a fan of the "Gat out of Hell" add on because it tends to just be too silly for my gaming preferences. But as I said earlier, where GTA V is getting away from, Saints Row encourages using cheat codes. Again, it adds a feel to that of "Crackdown" with the "Super Power" abilities you can receive which then ends up making the game much more fun the GTA when you are flying around the city jumping from building to building destroying enemies. So in conclusion, If you enjoy games like Prototype, or Crackdown. The kind of games with Collectibles to find, an immersive Matrix like story line, and over sized cleavage than get Saints Row. If you like a story mode that eventually kills one of your main characters leaving you to free roam a massive city with a bunch of money and a garage that deletes purchased cars all together. Forcing you to move to online play, where in the beginning you find yourself being destroyed by randoms online, and then being ask to do heists 87 time within 15 minutes. Then I would suggest GTA V
Android is better than Windows OS

The challenger is completely deviating the discussion because we are talking about the OS not about the device or the other features and if he says about the security he will certainly know that android phones have ample number of security locks such as swipe,pattern or pin etc. but almost all windows phones are having only pin lock. When the challenger is saying, "You criticize Android for having more apps and better GUI, but that alone does not make it better than Windows." he should know that I am not criticizing android, in fact I am in favor of it. He said that games and apps don't matter to an OS but he should know that today mobile phones are not just a device to talk and send messages but many people but phones only to show-off and that are mostly android operated. And to support my point of view, let's take the example of any game, for example I am taking angry birds, first of all it was not available in the store since mid 2014 and now when it is available, it is only the trial version. Also,in South Asian countries windows OS is not functional without internet connection. If windows is better than android, why should many mobile phone companies prefer android,for example L.G.,H.T.C., and Samsung etc. Why only it's owner, Microsoft, is operating it's mobile phones with it. Next, the GUI is more colorful and bright and attractive unlike, windows which has only one type of display screen. Thanks to the challenger for his wishes for me but I will appeal to voters to judge honest and neutrally.
Android is better than Windows OS

Opponent states that Android OS for mobile devices is superior to Windows Phone because of having more apps and games, as well as having a more visually appealing GUI. Opponent fails to back up such claims, as well as provide other reasons than the reasons they provided in their argument. Simply claiming that one OS has more apps and a better GUI does not necessarily make it superior over another. Opponent clearly lacks knowledge of operating systems and thus will fail at winning this debate. You criticize Android for having more apps and better GUI, but that alone does not make it better than Windows. What about the design of the phone/tablet itself? What about the hardware the OS is running on? What about the unique features and OS-exclusive apps that make each OS different? What about its network connection capabilities, whether wi-fi or through a phone service provider? What about the security of each operating system? Opponent clearly is incompetent and does not properly analyze such details when comparing one OS to another. Besides those flaws, I will also refute opponent's main arguments. How does having more apps and games make one OS superior over the other? Are the apps and games of high quality compared to the small amount on Windows? Do the apps and games run better on Android's hardware and with higher security? Opponent is too vague and does not give reasoning or evidence to back up their claims. Are you trying to imply that Android has better third-party support than Windows? If so, explain how third-party support makes the operating system of a mobile device superior over another. In reality, third-party support only benefits the app stores that are built-in with the OS, not the OS itself. I ask that opponent must do more research in the next two rounds to increase chances of winning. Also, since when did the GUI of an operating system affect the quality of it? Both operating systems allow you to customize each layout to your liking, and each design will appeal to different audiences. One has a set of square shaped apps on a wallpaper; the other has a bunch of square tiles with a simple graphic logo to represent the app. Third party apps on Windows resemble apps seen on Android and the same can be said for Android as first party apps are vector-based apps as well. So both operating systems are similar in design and can be customized - the Windows GUI itself is actually more convenient and easier to navigate, and the vector-based logo approach is actually visually appealing and radically different than what iOS and Android have to offer. I hope that opponent does well in the future rounds and in future debates. From what I am seeing, opponent will most likely lose this debate. I apologize in advance if the wording of my arguments may sound too controversial or sound as if it were personally attacking the opponent. Voters can penalize me for misconduct to give opponent a higher advantage as this is his/her first debate and is new to this site.
Should heroism involve sacrifice if the sacrifice is worth it

Well, it really depends if it is for a story, or for real life... In most stories, there really is no way around it. But, as I agree with con, if you can find a way around it, you could avoid it. Many people have said to me, "Would you rather sacrifice yourself for 10,000 (or more) people, but no one knows you did it, or don't sacrifice yourself, and you live, but all those people die." At least, you would die knowing you did good. And, if you are a Christian, die knowing you would probably go to Heaven, not Hell. If not, then at least you can be proud knowing you died for a good cause.
there is no god, becuase then i would know god

Believing in God is an act of faith. You can believe that God is real, it's the faith part that counts. Yes, you can believe something, like you believe that this is a real debate. And to your question 'Why believe anything', is like asking 'why go to school?' 'Why eat?' Because you have the power and freedom to do so. Do you have any proof that there is no God except for 'there is no god, because then I would know god'. On another point, you need to work on your grammar, buddy.
Undeniable Evolutionary Evidence Proves Earth should be devoid of Life!

First off, we have actually made your "primordial ooze" as you call it, they are called ribonucleic acids aka RNA. While not living on their own, they are the basis for DNA and if left for long enough, the theory goes that eventually single-celled organisms are made, then diversify, so on and so forth until you reach the complex life seen today. Second, you can't create something from nothing, that is literally impossible. Third, your using a black-and-white fallacy, "you can't recreate life therefore Creationism". Finally, you are insane if you think that the first common ancestor was anything even close to an animal or plant from today. It was a single-celled organism that most likely fed off sea vents.
Nuclear Energy

There once was a saying that went something like this. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Clearly, this is not the case for neither my opponent, nor myself. The non-renewable bubbas are quick to dismiss anything positive, and exacerbate anything negative that would threaten their cash flow. Welcome to modified capitalosm. Voting issues: 1. There is no doubt that nuclear energy works. 2. Likewise, there is no doubt that there ae inherent dangers associated with nuclear, and we have yet to discover a feasible way to dispose of the toxic waste without further endangering lives and ecology. 3. Start up costs clearly make it prohibitive for much of the world. 4. As only a handful can afford it, nuclear constitutes only 16%. This deduces that 84% comes from alternative sources. I have demonstrated that the 3 headed renewable energies, wind, hydro, and solar, are indeed efficiient, affordable, and cleaner than nuclear. I went on to make the ddo community further aware of the possibility of magnetic energy. While still in it's infancy, should magnetic energy blossom, everyone, everyone could benefit from this discovery. Yes it is a monetary threat to the Haliburtons of the world, yet they too could prosper by among the first to expand this invention. Conclusion. My opponent outlined the merits of nuclear energy and attempted to minimize the effects of it's toxic waste. I have demonstrated viable alternatives.
Nuclear Energy

This round is going to be quick and painless due to my very limited computer access. In response to my opponent: Safety: The 3 accidents are worthy of mention simply because they happened, and to illustrate that safety is indeed a concern. Another item of safety concern is transport of nuclear waste while in transport from facilities to recycling centers and / or disposal sites. Should an accidental spill occur, it could put lives in danger as well as disrupt the ecology. Cost is also a legitimate question as the startup costs are far greater than many nations can spend. I unintentionally misspoke on my primary alternative source. The actual term should have been "Magnetic generators". Included is a link to magnetic generators: http://www.magnetic-generator.us... I feel that if a substanial research investment were made in this area, it could have monumental positive effects for the entire world. "All truth goes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident." Arthur Schopenhauer http://www.squidoo.com... Thanks
Nuclear Energy

This is going to be a simple Pro Nuclear Energy vs Con Nuclear Energy. No specific resolution, just the broad subject of using nuclear energy. Burden of Proof - The BoP falls equally on both debaters to support and defend their arguments while refuting their opponent's. For example, Con can focus on negative effects to the environment, safety issues, or better alternatives rendering Nuclear obsolete, but Con cannot just disagree with everything Pro puts up (and vise versa). I will go ahead and present some definitions. Unless Con finds these definitions to be abusive, they are to be accepted. If Con finds them abusive, Con is free to present alternative definitions, but then it will be up to the voters to agree if my definitions are abusive or not. Nuclear energy (as it pertains to this debate) - The gathering of energy from nuclear fission or nuclear fusion to use in commercial purposes (such as electricity). Nuclear fission - A nuclear reaction in which a heavy nucleus splits spontaneously or on impact with another particle, with the release of energy. [1] Nuclear fusion - A nuclear reaction in which atomic nuclei of low atomic number fuse to form a heavier nucleus with the release of energy. [2] Con may present any additional definitions that they choose and may start debating in their R1, however, they are also free to pass it back to me to start in my R2. Additional definitions may be added as needed throughout the entire debate. [1] http://www.google.com...= [2] http://www.google.com...=