BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The increased internet exposure of children has benefited them

Although the internet has helped develop schooling outside the traditional education system, the question is, is it actually good for a child to "have access to more information than any college library"? Of course, the internet has a vast array of relevant information that helps with education, but what's relevant and what's not has to be regulated by a parent or tutor. However, in the example of a library you gave, all the material has been published, and no publisher is going to publish something that is incorrect, so in effect a library's collection is a more reputable source than the internet. The same could be said of a textbook - it's going to be reliable. Therefore surely, even in the case of a family living in a remote location and not being able to attend school for example, it would be more beneficial to the child to have reliable information, rather than have a parent/tutor sift through all potential material to check whether it is actually useful. Pornographic material is just one example of unsuitable information readily available to children. There is propaganda (in the sense of misleading information intending to influence views) everywhere. Modelling: encouraging children to become extremely skinny and to don huge amounts of make-up; news websites: portraying the worst of certain cultures, leading to stereotypes among impressionable kids and finally social networking sites: where once again, children can be exposed to radical views and horrifying images/scenes* while their parents think they are just chatting to their friends. The social media network takes me onto my next point - cyberbullying. It is an increasing problem as parents are often unaware of how easy it is for their child to sign up for sites that have anonymous questions (e.g. Ask.fm) where frankly, anything goes. If you feel like saying that someone is ugly or worthless, you can, and they don't have to know who has told them this. The internet is also a very addictive habit. One can easily neglect important things such as homework by wasting time scrolling through your "Twitter feed" or alternative. Of course this happens with other hobbies, but it is much harder for parents to regulate when a child has their phone/computer with them when they are meant to be doing homework. *interesting to note that Facebook, last week announced that it would now allow scenes of beheadings to be shown, and with the minimum age for Facebook being 13, and many under that age using it, I find that quite worrying. But all is okay, Facebook have said they will put put a warning sign on the video so I'm sure these kids will be deterred.....
The increased internet exposure of children has benefited them

I would first like to say thank you to Alex.Fisher for starting such an interesting debate topic! I hope that this will be educational and interesting for all involved. Now, on with the debating! The Internet has indeed transformed education. Before the advent of the Internet, the student would either have to physically attend school or read about the subject in a textbook. Children with stable families and good health benefited greatly from education. Those who could not attend a school, however, were greatly disadvantaged. The current generation has no such disadvantage. Anyone with Internet access can benefit from this ever-expanding plethora of knowledge. A child can turn on a Smart-phone and have access to more information than any college library. No longer is the worlds most precious information held inside the private book collections of academics. The combined knowledge of humanity is now accessible from a pocket-sized computer. As to the argument of pornographic exposure, this is a very subjective topic. I think that the morality of pornography should be set aside, as this is fit for an entirely different debate. However i will argue that it is up to the parent to restrict exposure to pornography and that this has been an issue long before the existence of the Internet. Though the Internet has made it easier to access pornographic content, it has also made it easier to control it. Parents can easily install censorship software on their children's computers and phones, preventing any exposure to potentially "harmful" content. Now onto the topic of environmental crisis. I would argue that the Internet has provided more ways to view the earth than ever before. With technology such as Google Earth, we can see Earth in ways people in the past have only dreamed of. Now a child living in a polluted city can see beautiful environments that would be hidden from them. Children living in pristine environments can now know the full extent of the damage done to the ecosystem can see it from any vantage point. The desertification of Africa and China can now be seen via satellite by any Internet user. The Internet has created new ways to enjoy natures beauty, educating otherwise ignorant people of its current degradation. The Internet has also allowed for a new level of intellectual freedom. People around the world can communicate instantly with anyone connected to the Internet. Ideas are being exchanged in speeds and quantities that would be impossible without the Internet. This has an extremely powerful effect on todays children. Parents can research new and better ways to raise their children. Teachers can now communicate with other teachers all over the world, learning from the mistakes and successes of their peers. Doctors can access new research instantly, possibly saving the lives of many children. Children can now talk to family on the other side of the world, at near instant speeds. No longer will the children of military families lose years of contact with parents and loved ones.
The increased internet exposure of children has benefited them

I firstly would like to state that I am AGAINST the motion. We live in an age where technology and the internet is second nature. We take it for granted and assume that it is always a step forward. But is it really? The way that the internet has transformed education in particular is particularly notable. Pupils know that instead of learning something, for example capital cities of maths formulae, they will always be able to "Google" it, and I believe that this in fact isn't a step forward as we are being encouraged to be lazy. There recently have been many discussions about whether Google and other search engines should regulate the content available. Also, here in the UK, David Cameron (our PM) tried to pass a law to ban pornographic sites. Dangerous and graphic websites damage children mentally and expose them to content not suitable for their ages. In a time when our environment is in crisis, children, and especially adolescents are spending more time sitting in front of a computer clicking away endlessly. If we want our children to improve the conditions and the way protecting our environment is managed, surely we should be making sure that they appreciate nature? I'm not suggesting that it is impossible to engage in both of these activities but if you gave your average 15 year old such as myself the choice between a walk in the countryside and staying in on their laptop, I can guarantee that the majority would choose the latter.
Brain drain is better than brain in drain

Well, my opponent forfeited his round. No matter! I shall quickly explain why brain drain is better than brain in drain:As defined above, brain drain is "The departure of educated or professional people from one country, economic sector, or field for another usually for better pay or living conditions" and brain in drain is "The human brain, placed into a drain". While brain drain is certainly bad for the country losing the people, it does benefit other countries that are receiving them. On the other hand, a brain in drain is useless and has no real purpose. It would also start to smell really nasty after a while.
The role of the USSR in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies

"Even though the USSR did serve as a very major role it in fact would not have had that opportunity without the western allies."Perhaps, however at the same time that the Western Allies were fighting 150,000 German soldiers in Africa, the Soviet Union was fighting 3.5 million on the eastern front. The Soviet Union might have won even without the help of the Western Allies."The dissolve of the Nazi German Economy was the major factor that lead to the downfall and ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany."And that was brought about by the Soviet Union, not the Western Allies."From late 1944 on, Allied bombings were destroying German factories and cities at a rapid pace, leading to the final collapse of the German war economy in 1945 (Stunde Null). Food became drastically scarce. Synthetic fuel production dropped by 86% in eight months, explosive output was reduced by 42% and the loss of tank output was 35%.[72] The Allied bombing campaign also tied up valuable manpower, with Albert Speer (Germany's Minister of Armaments) estimating that in the summer of 1944 between 200,000 and 300,000 men were permanently employed in repairing oil installations and placing oil production underground."Nobody doubts the damage done to Germany by Western Allied bombings. The bombings killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and destroying many factories and cities, one of the greatest crimes of WWII. The bombings however had no impact on the outcome of the war, just like D-Day had no impact on the outcome of the war. "Also all together Nazi Germany had more troops then that of the USSR in 1944 and 1945."Completely false, you misread your source. In 1944 and 1945 the Soviets outnumbered the Germans heavily."If the western allies hadn't been there to distract the USSR would haven't had the ability or the power to get threw the defense of Nazi Germany."That is a possibility. However like you said, the Western Allies distracted Germany. They did not defeat Germany. "The reason that the USSR was able to even push Germany back has to due with failure of re supplies; without that the Nazis would have even won the battle of Stalingrad."Completely untrue. The only reason Hitler lost in the east was because of Hitler's mistakes."All together the western allies made up a bigger force then that of the German western campaign."I would agree with you there. Overall, the western allies had more men than Germany, as did the Soviet Union. However this does not prove your point."The western allies also preformed operation torch which managed to cut of Germany from some precious fuels."Actually it was the oil in Romania that the Soviets captured which cut Germany off from fuel. There was no oil in Africa. Africa had no economic importance.Conclusion: Not only does Con use incorrect English, he has many incorrect facts. His strongest argument is that without the Western Allies the Soviets would definitely have lost. Not only is that untrue, the Soviets might still have won without the Western Allies, it is not an argument since without the Soviet Union, the Western Allies would most likely have lot.
The role of the USSR in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies

I would argue the opposite -- the role the Western allies put in actually was slightly greater then that of the USSR. Even though the USSR did serve as a very major role it in fact would not have had that opportunity without the western allies. The dissolve of the Nazi German Economy was the major factor that lead to the downfall and ultimate defeat of Nazi Germany. "From late 1944 on, Allied bombings were destroying German factories and cities at a rapid pace, leading to the final collapse of the German war economy in 1945 (Stunde Null). Food became drastically scarce. Synthetic fuel production dropped by 86% in eight months, explosive output was reduced by 42% and the loss of tank output was 35%.[72] The Allied bombing campaign also tied up valuable manpower, with Albert Speer (Germany's Minister of Armaments) estimating that in the summer of 1944 between 200,000 and 300,000 men were permanently employed in repairing oil installations and placing oil production underground.[73]" Also all together Nazi Germany had more troops then that of the USSR in 1944 and 1945 (2). If the western allies hadn't been there to distract the USSR would haven't had the ability or the power to get threw the defense of Nazi Germany. The reason that the USSR was able to even push Germany back has to due with failure of re supplies; without that the Nazis would have even won the battle of Stalingrad. Lets look at what the western side. All together the western allies made up a bigger force then that of the German western campaign (3). The western allies also preformed operation torch which managed to cut of Germany from some precious fuels. With that the bombing also took out fuel production for vehicles -- effectively cutting Germany off and sinking there economy. Also I'd like to argue without the pressure from the west much could of been redirected towards the soviet union; making the Western Allies more important to the defeat. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II) (3)http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II)
The First Crusade

The First Crusade has been viewed in a number of different ways. These views range from the First Crusade was an attempt to colonize North Africa to, the First Crusade was simply bloodthirsty religious fanatical Christian Europeans invading Muslim lands and slaughtering as many people as they could. I present that the First Crusade, although fought by fanatical people in some cases, was in and of itself a defensive and necessary war.
The First Crusade

Since my opponent has not posted another argument I will simply reiterate my second round argument. Europe and its valuable trade partner, the Byzantine Empire, had been under attack from Islam since the 7th century. The most severe of these attacks conquered the Iberian Peninsula and tried to conquer the land of the Franks (modern day France.) As a side note, it is interesting that Muslims attacking these European controlled lands did so with religious motivations. The Battle of Tours, in which Charles Martel defeated the advancing Muslim horde in Arabic is called, The Battle of Court of the Martyrs. Muslim accounts of the battle tell of Islamic warriors going out in battle as "Ghazis", or "martyrs for their faith who died in battle." It is interesting that despite people's attempts to paint the picture that the crusades begot jihad we have this overwhelming proof that Islam was the first to embark on "holy war". Anyways, back to the First Crusade. The most recent attacks against European and Byzantium lands were the capture of Anatolia and the capture of Sicily. Also, Muslims killed many Christians in Jerusalem when they conquered it. Another mitigating factor was the crucifixion of sixty Christian pilgrims by Muslims on their way to the Holy Land. It was in response to these attacks and others that brought Alexius to beg Urban II for help. It was these attacks and others that led Urban II to call for a defensive war to re-conquer lost colonies and defeat a major threat. It was these attacks and the others that occurred that led thousands of people to take up Urban II's call and fight. Again, though I say, it doesn't matter what Urban's intentions were for the war, if it had not been for these aggressions against Europe and Byzantium; if it had not been for the persecution of Christians in the Holy Land and the Iberian Peninsula, no one would have responded to the call.
The First Crusade

The reason that Pope Urban the II had to call for the First Crusade is because of Muslim aggression. Islam had conquered the Iberian Peninsula and was working on defeating the Byzantine Empire, which was not only a friendly nation with Europe but also a very beneficial trade partner. Many people assert that because the Iberian Peninsula had been conquered so long ago that this didn't have anything to do with the First Crusade. However, if one looks at the history of medieval Europe from the time of the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula to the time of the First Crusade then it one will see that Europe was a very chaotic place during these years. 1095 was the earliest that Europe had the ability to do anything about Muslim aggressions. "Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The crusades were in every way a defensive war. " This is a quote from Dr. Thomas Madden. . http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com... I list this website in order to show Dr. Madden's credentials in this field. Another thing that brought about this defensive war was the capture of Jerusalem by the Seljuk Turks in 1073. Whenever this group of Muslims took over they were much more extreme than before and slaughtered most of the remaining Christians in the city. Many pilgrims coming to the city were treated badly also. Now, remember that just like the Iberian Peninsula, Jerusalem had also been under the control of the Christians. The Byzantine Empire had fought many enemies to try and keep it under its control. Another example of Muslim aggression against Europe was the capture of Sicily which happened in 902. Yet another example of Muslim aggressions against Europe and its friends is the attack and capture of Anatolia in 1073. Anatolia was also taken from the Byzantine Empire. It wasn't until Emperor Alexius came and beseached Urban the II for help to fight off the invading Muslims. By then, the Byzantines had lost almost half of their empire. I do agree with you that starting a Crusade would have been a great way to gain power. However, whatever Pope Urban's ambitions may or may not have been, (because no one really knows what they were) the First Crusade was a response to Muslim conquest of both European and Byzantium lands and the mistreatment of Christian pilgrims. For, if these things had not happened, Pope Urban II could have called for a crusade all he wanted and nobody would have responded.
The First Crusade

Thank You for such an interesting topic. The main factor that led to the first crusade was the rising power of the Church at this time was another factor leading to the Crusades. This created a rising tide of piety in Western Europe that expressed itself in pilgrimages to Palestine before the Turks seized it, and adapted itself to a holy war (crusade) after the Turkish conquest. This rising tide of piety was part of a broader movement for Church reform led by the popes that had caused the Investiture Struggle with the German emperors over control of the election of Church officials. Both the reunification of the Catholic Church with Byzantium and the recovery of Jerusalem fit into the larger ambitions of Pope Urban II. If the pope could lead all of Christendom in a crusade to recover the Holy Land (Palestine), then his moral authority would far surpass that of the German Emperor.
New characters for Smash Bros.

Sure enough, he came, he left. This is sufficient enough for at least a conduct loss. However, I'll refute the arguments made by him.Rebuttal:It seems like I forgot to put "No memes allowed" in the rules. I'll let my opponent's exploition be valid. However, it still falls short.Insufficient Move Amount;Rule 4 states "Your move set must contain 4 special moves, and a Final Smash." My opponent only listed 3 moves, not 4. Maybe he only played the N64 version of Smash Bros, where Side Specials didn't exist? Anyways, the number of moves is insufficient, since he's missing an Up Special, it seems! You can't have a character without an Up Special, which is the recovery move to get back on the stage (Yes, I know Yoshi and Jigglypuff are exceptions to characters with recoveries).Lack of Explanation, and possibly Overpowered;The first attack says "super destructive", does this mean it covers the entire stage? Yes, I never stated the character couldn't be over powered in the rules, it's kind of self explanitory. You can't have an over powered character, or else all of the other characters won't be used.2nd attack could also use an explanation. How fast are the gnomes going, and how much damage would each do? And how many gnomes per second? Also, the name is irrelevant to the actual attack.3rd attack's name is irrelevnt to the actual attack as well. Also, it's lacking an explanation. How much damage does the airstrike do? How big is the air strike?The Final Smash could also use explanations. What do these cancer cells do? How long does the Final Smash last?Grammar issues;Yeah, I might as well make this clear. Con appears to have been on reddit for maybe too long. Capital letters would be nice, even though it's the native typing thing there. And the end... That might be some lost points too ["kk thx pl0x vote for me"]Closing Thoughts;Since my opponent timed out, my arguments regarding Amaterasu still stand. I believe every single of Amaterasu's moves are sufficiently explained, such as how much damage each move does, whether it's simlar to another attack, and launch potential. My opponent, however... I want a real debate.I doubt he'll be coming back so... Amaterasu can just go back to Nippon and do whatever.
New characters for Smash Bros.

lets get right into the noose. i select dat boi from reddit. first attack: super devastating pepe airstrike: drop a super destructive bomb on ur enemy, making them stunned. second attack: lets get right into the noose: throw gnomes at ur enemy at SUPER SPEEDS. third attack: wheelie?: call in tumblr to airstrike your enemy. FINAL SMASH: oh sh!t what up: throw cancer cells at your enemy. kk thx pl0x vote for me
New characters for Smash Bros.

This is a debate for new characters to add to Super Smash Bros.Rules:1. For this debate, characters from a cartoon is allowed.2. You must give a valid move set for your character (One that's canon to their video game/TV show/movie. So no Teletubbies with rocket launchers).3. Characters originating from YouTube or a brand is invalid.4. Your move set must contain 4 special moves, and a Final Smash.5. You must also give a reason for why you chose that character.6. Forfeitng a round will result in a conduct loss, or an instant defeat (Voter's choice).Voting Rules:Argument points will be given to whoever had the better character, and the better explanation.Conduct points will be given to whoever didn't insult their opponent, or forfeited a round (You're not required to give conduct, however).Spelling & Grammar is self explanatory; whoever's arguments were easier to read (Optional).My character will be Amaterasu from CapCom's Okami. My opponent will choose their character in round 1, then arguments Round 2.