BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spore (the game) might just change the world!

First, my opponent sings high praises of the game, explaining how it will be awesome. Many other games have been awesome for the computer, like Civ, or Sims but the world did not change because of their existence. The game spore sure sounds cool, but won't matter in the end. "Basically this game will give kids a view of the world that is all encompassing ... Childhood is the most important time for developing one's world view and since this game is focused directly on children..." I'm not sure how an evolution-based game will change people's viewpoints on humanity. Halo didn't make people realize the importance of not trusting alien creatures, and Civilization didn't lead to people starting new societies on islands. Children are not as influenced by games as my opponent would like to have us believe. Many people here probably played a game such as Sonic, however we are not all running around really fast collecting rings. Also, the game is marketed to people of all audiences, not just children. "Reducing religious influence and allowing greater appreciation for science..." Science is good, but a video-game won't make kids appreciate it more. Video-games, such as this one, are going to be highly entertaining, but won't make people value science over religion all of the sudden. "The games you provided haven't influenced society b.c they havent dealt with important issues....This game is completely different. So much so that every child should be given a copy." Metal Gear Solid has dealt with issues such as information control, love, politics of war, my other games perform similar tasks. But anyway, Spore doesn't deal with "important issues" anymore than my listed games do, it will simply entertain folks, but won't be valuable enough to be distributed to all kids. I doubt it will have any value, other than to distract school children from their school work, something that all fun games do. As I have shown, the world will not by changed by the
Spore (the game) might just change the world!

Thanks for accepting Sweatingjojo and providing your opinion. Unfortunately it is just that, an opinion. I will now provide an argument as to why this game will alter humanity's outlook on life in the coming decades. I accept your definition, but I will add an extra detail. That if change does occur that change will not necessarily be seen as obviously attributed to spore even after the fact. Nevertheless Spore will have been responsible for that change. Spore Explained: Spore is a game that allows you to design and evolve life, starting with a single cell organism that evolves into and animal, a tribe, a trans-global civilization, and then a trans-galactic civilization. Conquering many planets throughout the galaxy with other alien creatures on them. The game also deals with environmental issues. http://www.ted.com... Basically this game will give kids a view of the world that is all encompassing and allows them to see how what we do today does in fact effect the future of humanity. (something that is difficult for many ppl to see now) Childhood is the most important time for developing one's world view and since this game is focused directly on children it has real potential to change their views. Reducing religious influence and allowing greater appreciation for science. Dan Dennett wants religion to be taught in all schools this may just be even better than that. The games you provided haven't influenced society b.c they havent dealt with important issues. Essentially they weren't capable of teaching kids anything particular. This game is completely different. So much so that every child should be given a copy. thanks back to you~
Spore (the game) might just change the world!

I do not believe that this game will 'change the world' in any degree that would be significantly quantifiable outside of the gaming community. I'm going to define 'changing the world' more specifically for the purposes of this resolution that alters the modern human culture to the point of being felt by the average non-gamer. My belief rests on the past releases of frankly, amazing games, and how the world was not changed by their release. Games such as Metal Gear Solid (any of them), Grand Theft Auto IV, Halo (1, 2,3), Super Smash Brothers, Half-Life (1,2), the list goes on and on. Now there have been some games that changed the world, such as Super Mario Brothers, or Pac-Man. However, those two games were both released decades ago, and the changes they have made to the way entertainment works are now part of the evolutionary cycle of these media, where games improve, sometimes significantly, but never to the point where it makes a long-standing mark on culture. Spore, the game, will likely be something different and enjoyable on the PC, playable for many years, and building a community of many users throughout. However, I don't think that there will be a significant alteration to human culture by the release of this game. Thank you.
Spore (the game) might just change the world!

I am claiming that once this video game > http://www.spore.com... < Spore, is released might just change the world forever. "World" meaning humanity in general, not the physical earth. All of you semantic debaters out there, who want to say, "of coarse it will change the world b/c after its released it will exist, hence the world is changed." you know thats not the point i'm getting at. I'm saying that this video game has a good chance of really changing the way people look at the universe.
Federal funding of abstinence-only sex education should cease

"Why should we tell them not to have sex well because it is dangerous to your health even condoms dont work all the time and some dont use them." I don't know what health classes you've been taking, but sex is not in and of itself dangerous to your health. Remember, not EVERYONE is infected with an STD. If you are sure of the STD status of both yourself and your partner, a condom is not needed to prevent the spread of an STD. Condoms may not be 100% effective every time in preventing the spread of STDs, but with PROPER use (which is NOT taught in abstinence-only sex education) they are extremely effective. It is rather irrational to say that one should give up a pleasurable activity entirely on the tiny chance that you partner may have an STD and that the condom will fail. As for some people not using them, abstinence-only education does not encourage people to use condoms. In fact, it very well may DISCOURAGE them because many of these programs contain false information about their effectiveness. "Its kinda like jumping over fire yeah sure you can jump it but if you mess up you could die." Only in a very, VERY small percentage of cases. The only STD that is both fatal and incurable is HIV. All others can be cured with the exception of herpes, which isn't fatal. Despite the hysteria over HIV, it is actually a rare virus. "Also you say its aginst the first amanment but the facts are before the rules the country was all christian." That is ridiculous. The country was not ALL Christian. Deism, for example, was popular with many of the Founding Fathers. If you refer to the writings of such figures as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, you will see that the First Amendment was intending to protect the freedoms of EVERY citizen of the U.S., Christian or not. The fact that the majority of the country today is Christian is irrelevant. One of the principles the government of this country was formed upon was that the majority did not have the right to strip rights from the minority. Such actions constitute a mob rule.
Federal funding of abstinence-only sex education should cease

sorry about that got confused about what i was debating i applogize. now after studying i will post my debate. Why should we tell them not to have sex well because it is dangerous to your health even condoms dont work all the time and some dont use them. Its kinda like jumping over fire yeah sure you can jump it but if you mess up you could die. In this case AIDS or STD the matter of the fact is teens shouldnt have sex unless married its not safe. Also you say its aginst the first amanment but the facts are before the rules the country was all christian. Most of the U.S is christian today and still belives in the whole marriage thing most parents want it so the christians provide it so what its not that bad. The fact of the matter is that this goverment was founded by christians I belive the dollor bill says in god we trust. Just because its in the first amament says its worng doesnt mean they are not right. Yeah its true that teens don't listen and do it anyway but what are we to not try protect them from them selfs.
Federal funding of abstinence-only sex education should cease

"Ineffective huh ok so we shouldn't have it well thats kinda idiotic listen well and listen good, what if kids don't know that theres a such thing as STD or AIDS if we didn't tell them who's at fault the child or the adults? Your answer should be adults if there is sex ed at least they know their chance's and condoms do work 90% of the time." What are you talking about? Did you even read my argument? My position is against abstinence-only sex education, not ALL sex education. "what the heck is wrong with that just because they want your child to know that they can get STD and AIDS, and they just so happen to be religious you say that." I already told you what was wrong with that. Again, I am left to wonder whether or not you bothered to read my arguments at all. Funding sectarian religious organizations with federal tax money is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Are you attempting to argue that there is nothing wrong with that? "'More than 8 in 10 parents want the schools to teach sexuality education.' says new york times http://query.nytimes.com...... Its not just christians its parent any parent so don't go blaming people because of there beliefs." Again, I never said that sex education in public schools should be abolished. I stated only that abstinence-only sex education should not be paid for by government funds. I'm not "blaming people because of there [sic] beliefs". I was talking about the Constitution. Either READ MY INITIAL ARGUMENTS and come up with proper counter-arguments, or forfeit this debate. So far, you are wasting my time and I am beginning to resent it.
Federal funding of abstinence-only sex education should cease

Okay so sex ed is ineffective huh well this little Tibet bothers me, Abstinence-only education is ineffective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs among adolescents, and is therefore a waste of federal funds. Ineffective huh ok so we shouldn't have it well thats kinda idiotic listen well and listen good, what if kids don't know that theres a such thing as STD or AIDS if we didn't tell them who's at fault the child or the adults? Your answer should be adults if there is sex ed at least they know their chance's and condoms do work 90% of the time. Also here "The fact that many of the organizations providing abstinence-only education that are receiving federal funding are religious in nature " what the heck is wrong with that just because they want your child to know that they can get STD and AIDS, and they just so happen to be religious you say that. Mainly sex ed was made by concerned parents about there child ask an adult what they want there children to be aware of sex, this is not just the goverment and christians wanting to force there teaching. "More than 8 in 10 parents want the schools to teach sexuality education." says new york times http://query.nytimes.com... Its not just christians its parent any parent so don't go blaming people because of there beliefs.
Federal funding of abstinence-only sex education should cease

Before I begin, I would to clarify the purpose of this debate. This is not a debate about whether or not schools should be teaching sex education. This debate deals with the fact that schools DO teach sex education. My position in this debate is as stated above: federal funding for abstinence-only sex education should cease. My reasons for this position are as follows: 1. Most abstinence-only curricula contain errors and distortions of fact, and therefore contradict the purpose of education. http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:E7kguasvRUAJ:oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf The above is a link to a report on abstinence-only education made by a House of Representatives committee in 2004. This report found that over 80% of abstinence-only contain false information. Among them, there is misrepresentation of the effectiveness of condoms in preventing pregnancies and the spread of STDs, misrepresentation of the risk of abortions, as well as blatant errors in scientific fact. To compound the offense, many of these curricula present opinion (largely conceived from religious bias) as scientific fact, such as when life begins and stereotypes about males and females. According to the report cited above, eleven of the thirteen abstinence-only programs most commonly used by Special Programs of Regional and National Significance — Community- Based Abstinence Education (SPRANS) in 2004 contain major errors or distortions of fact. 2. Abstinence-only education is ineffective in preventing pregnancy and the spread of STDs among adolescents, and is therefore a waste of federal funds. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com... This study, which as authorized by Congress in 1997 and conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, concludes that youth participating in the four evaluated programs (which received substantial federal funding) were no more likely to abstain from sex in the four to six years after they began the study than the youths not participating in these programs. 3. The fact that many of the organizations providing abstinence-only education that are receiving federal funding are religous in nature constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. http://www.aclu.org... In the case described above, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services is being sued for providing over one million dollars in public funds to a Christian organization that whose stated mission includes using abstinence-only education to evangelize students. This use of public funds is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution as I have stated above. It is only rational to state that the federal government should not support programs when it constitutes a direct violation of the Constitution. I have further arguments, but I will allow my opponent to make his/her arguments first and attempt to refute mine before I continue.
US should implement Universal Health Care

This debate is impossible to accept. If you somehow manage to accept, you will have to forfeit or it will be considered a loss. The resolution of this debate: "US should implement Universal Health Care".Please note that the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is not Universal Health Care. , so I am not here to debate Obamacare, but instead advocate for Universal Health Care similar to that of Canada and majority of West Europian countries.To clarify the resolution further: Every American resident citizen should have access to free health care. They should have same access regardless of their wealth. If you have questions regarding the debate, please ask in the comments. I am looking for a serious debater. Rules 4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 characters, Voting: 2500 Elo For the sake of the reader, the format will be: Round 1: Acceptance Only Round 2: All arguments/contentions in this round Round 3: Rebuttals only (No new arguments) Round 4: Defense of contentions (No rebuttals) and a conclusion 1. No forfeits. 2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments. 3. No new arguments in the final round. 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere. 5. No trolling. 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution). 7. No deconstructional semantics. 8. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared 9. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. I look forward for an exciting debate.
Mitt Romney should have beaten Obama

(2000 character limit) In my belief Obama should have beaten Romney because: 1) More people voted for Obama then Romney. Obama was elected fair and square by the public and just because you dont agree with his policies and preferred someone elses, it doesnt mean that he therefore shouldnt have been elected president just because you alone dont like him. Romney shouldnt have won because he didnt get enough votes. 2) If Romney won then the Republican party might have grown more extreme. The Republican party platform has been seen as extreme by more and more Americans, which is reflected in voting percentages by sex, race, and age. http://www.sacbee.com...http://www.addictinginfo.org...Had Romney won then the Republican party could have continued to grow more and more extreme which could have cost them numerous future elections. 3) Republicans can do a hell of a lot better then Romney. Had Romney won then the Republican party would start chasing around future candidates similar to Romney, rather then exceptional candidates similar to Reagan. Had Romney won then it could have caused the Republican party to start pushing mediocre candidates like Romney to run instead of pitching someone who could truly redefine America, politics, etc. to run. 4) Now could have been a really bad time for there to be a Republican president. There is no guarantee that America is going to get better these next four years, and it is also possible that the sh*t hits the fan before 2016 and ruin the reputation of the party in power. We may not be able to tell now, but if America does go to hell sometime before 2016, then the Democrats would have their reputation ruined while the Republican party flourishes. If Romney won though, then Republican credibility would be sh*t and Democrats would flourish. Thats all I can fit for right now
The Bible is Scientifically Inaccurate

It's funny how you say I don't know enough about science when I'm the one providing scientific facts. However I'm just going to assume that you're avoiding the topic of evolution because it's stumbling block for your side the bible debate. You also failed to rebuttal any of my arguments. You just gave excuses as to why the bible is vague, and wrong when it comes to science. Which is what I expected. You stated that Genesis gives the impression that the sun was created at the same time as the earth. You say "Now it does give the impression that the sun was created at that same time". First off I don't know how you could possibly come to that conclusion. Especially when Genesis specifies that the sun was made on the fourth day. And no, the events in the rest of the chapter after Gen 1:1 could not have taken place billions of years because the chapter clearly states "And there was evening, and there was morning"the first day". Day not years. You also state that Part of the problem is that when I read the Bible I think that if this book came from God He either wrote it Himself or He dictated it to someone word for word. Yes for a book that claims to be divinely inspired, and the "Word of God" I hold it to a high level of scrutiny as if it was dictated by God to someone word for word. This is why minor errors in the book can't be simply brushed off because if God is so perfect, and this is his word, then why are there mistakes. Why would God have his only method of communication to humans be some old manuscript written from 3000 to 2000 years ago. Why not a much more accurate more up to date method of communication that can't be easily refuted as just imperfect writings from lunatics. Yes God should have made sure that Moses was Scientifically accurate because those "sacred" writings are supposedly representative of himself? Hence why Christians call it the "word of god". This is also not about 21 century readers that are contradictions in the bible that don't need modern science to be found out. However this debate was about the scientific inaccuracies of the bible which you vaguely avoided and went on to talk about Moses, but you talking point was just so unreasonable that I had to correct them. I hope your rebuttal deals more with the science of the bible, and not a bunch of excuses.
The Bible is Scientifically Inaccurate

I'm going to let the evolution stuff go because the topic is fairly advanced and you don't know enough about science to have a competent discussion. Maybe find someone with an advanced biology degree and I'll debate them instead. As far as the rest of what you are saying, it all boils down to you demonstrating that someone 4000 years ago writing a one page summary of the history of the earth for people also living 4000 years ago is under some kind of obligation to mention the exact circumference of the sun and its distance from the earth. Do you also go through public libraries and insist that they throw out any book that mentions the sun without mentioning its exact circumference? According to Genesis 1:1, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. So all the events that happen in the rest of the chapter happen after the universe was already created. In fact, the creation of the universe in verse 1 could have taken place billions of years before the events described in the rest of the chapter. Now it does give the impression that the sun was created at that same time. But that isn't necessarily the case since in verse 2 it explains that there was darkness over the earth. It could be that the sun was there all along but that it was being blocked off by something (volcanic ash for example) so that the earth was still in darkness. Part of the problem is that when you read the Bible you think that if this book came from God He either wrote it Himself or He dictated it to someone word for word. Basically God said to Moses, write down x,y,z and Moses wrote down x,y,z, (assuming Moses is the author of Genesis). But that is not how most of the things in the Bible were written. Instead, God shows certain events to the prophets (Moses, Samuel, Isaiah) and they then write things down in their own words and describe them the best they can. For example, if God wanted Moses to write a chapter about creation, He didn't just tell Moses what to write but instead gave him a vision so that he witnessed the actual events, sort of like a movie. So what Moses writes down would be his perspective of what he actually observed during that vision. If in vision he was standing on the earth and it was dark, he doesn't know whether the sun isn't there at all or the sun is just being obstructed. All he knows is that it's dark. Now you might say, why didn't God make sure that Moses was scientifically accurate, but every author has a certain purpose in writing a book and it's unlikely that God's main concern was to write something that would satisfy only 21th century readers to the exclusion of everyone else over the other 4 millenniums.