BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Contender's Choice

I forget that my opponent is functioning on extremely limited time. In the interest of brevity, I will offer only an idealistic summation of my belief. Indeed, my opponent has presented strong evidence that if one was interested in preserving one's health and well-being one would not smoke, and that tobacco products should be regulated to the extent that their use does not effect other individuals who choose not to consumethem. However, this debate regards whether smoking should be banned. My opponent has not presented evidence that a well informed individual (knowing of the risks) should lose his individual autonomy to choose to "self destruct" as it were. I ask that further argumentation be framed through this contention- that my belief stems from the ideal that man's autonomy supersedes his personal safety (safety when it violates his own will).
Contender's Choice

I'd like to try something a bit different than proposing a topic I feel confident I cannot lose in. Anyone interested in accepting this debate must first go to my profile and choose a topic (big issues, politics, religion, etc.,) that they differ personally on and propose that topic in their first acceptance round. The only restriction is that I must have stated an opinion on the topic on my profile. If one wishes to believe something, one must be confident that they can defend said belief. Anticipating an enjoyable debate!
Should children under twelve own a smartphone

Before I started my final speech, I found a horrible mistake, our speech are not matching the position, so I need to correct it, Lemon_Lam is pro, and I am con, please the judge correct it in their mind. Firstly, flip phone don't have GPS, but I think kids is impossible that they don't know where they are, they can ask people if it really happens, not all the thing need to use GPS. Lemon_Lam said, "Why keep them away from smart devices if the future will just be smart phones and tablets everywhere?" It is because the smart phone will cause health problems, and kids' bodies are not fully developed, the health damage will be even bigger, so they should own a smart phone when they become adults, not kids, even if the future there are lots of smart devices. Lemon_Lam said," Instead of having an iPod for music, a tablet for games, and what I call a "dinky little flip phone" for talk and text, kids should have one device that does all three. Instead of having to press buttons multiple times to text, smart hones allow voice dictating and hands-free texting." Using one word to conclude this speech of con, is "convenient". I have to do a compare: "convenient vs health damage" You think convenient is more important or health damage is more important. Lemon_Lam said, "Although you said smartphone cause health problem,but I have many classmates and friends and I also use smartphone and we are all fine now." You are all fine NOW, but you can't make sure that you are fine in the future, right? To conclude, I disagree of this topic because of smart phones cause health damage, and also affect kids' mental development, and lots of the advantage of smart phone can be replace by other machine. Therefore, I disagree the topic.
Should children under twelve own a smartphone

You're wrong because flip phone don't have the GPS navigation function and only smartphone can do it. Although you said smartphone cause health problem,but I have many classmates and friends and I also use smartphone and we are all fine now. First, instead of having an iPod for music, a tablet for games, and what I call a "dinky little flip phone" for talk and text, kids should have one device that does all three. Instead of having to press buttons multiple times to text, smartphones allow voice dictating and hands-free texting. Second, it's the world when they grow up. When kids grow up, smart devices will be the way most of the way the world works. So why keep them away from smart devices if the future will just be smart phones and tablets everywhere. (Especially in the 2020's and 2030's.) They'll probably buy one when they have a job anyways.
Should children under twelve own a smartphone

Parent can give children a simple flip phone to contact with them and know where they are, not only smartphone can do this. The harmful imformation in smartphone will affect kids' mental development. Smartphone also cause health problems. The harm are too serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, I disagree the topic. If you still agree the topic after reading my speech, please list out some advantages of smartphone which are irreplacealbe!
The US is responsible for the majority of death amongst Native Americans

Thank you for accepting my challenge and let the best debater win. Best of Luck. I will be putting 3 reasons why while the US was not responsible for the majority of death of Native Americans. 1. Time period: The US was formed/in place by 1776. This gave them 99 years to do what they would of with the natives. By the time the first (successful) British colony was around it was 1607 (Jamestown) or about 169 years of interaction with the natives. That is a difference of 70 years. This tells me that the amount of death caused by Europeans/Americans would be at a difference of 70 years. 2. Number of Factions: While the US is one whole country, there were 3 prominent ones in North America at the time. Spain, France, and England. While France was more peaceful, Spain and England had much more loose cannons on them and were usually violent towards them. The US had 90 years of doing away with the natives and were the only real threat. The Europeans had 160 years and 3 factions. This brings me to the much more important point. 3. Disease: When the Europeans arrived on North America they had disease that the Native Americans at the time had no knowledge or protection against. Their immune system was so weak a bloody nose could kill them. But what came was much worse. Small Pox was a huge problem in Europe and even more so among the natives. It is estimated by many sources that up to 75% of natives died from disease.
The US is responsible for the majority of death amongst Native Americans

I believe the US is not responsible for the majority of death amongst Native American between first European contact and 1875 (around end of wars with Native Americans). 3 Rounds of Debate: 1st: Acceptance: Just accepting and basic argument. Introduction. Nothing to serious. 2nd: Main argument: Period of debate. No claims against opponent or dissing them. Just stating what you believe with factual, debatable belief. As much space as needed although short is best in this case. 3rd: Rebuttal: Period of rejecting and rebutting what opponent states. Make arguments against statements of opponent and claims against their facts if you believe if untrue. Final statements are also recommend and supported in this stage. Rules: Not Many but a few No untrue claims: You can't state something like "the US bombed the heck out of them" as that is wrong. Have fun: It is only 3 rounds as it isn't the most serious debate of a topic. Be nice: Generic enough, but saying people are stupid (unless they are making stupid claims) is well... stupid. Have Fun and let the Debate Race start!
The US is responsible for the majority of death amongst Native Americans

While a rather interesting perspective, I will agree to the argument presented to me and rebut it. Before my main argument I will state this. My opponent makes a case by saying that "Native Americans should be considered as people who are born on US soil". While I am fine with the statement because it is his belief, I must mention something. Would a person born in the soon-to-be US be native American? It brings another question forward of mine. If those people aren't Native Americans, then are all the ones born during or after 1776 in the US Native Americans? To start my main argument, my opponent, based on his beliefs, is stating my question as "Are Native Americans responsible for the majority of death amongst itself? in essence. But what about people coming from Europe? The are the people I put guilt on. They can't be considered Native Americans because they weren't born in North America. Many sources say that 90% of death amongst Native Americans were caused by disease (earlyamerica.com) brought over by Europeans, who can't be considered Native Americans. By the time the Euro is out and the US is in, the Native American population is already low. One interesting fact I found was before Euro contact and 1900, the Native population dropped >10 million people to 530,000. (earlyamerica.com) To finish out my rebuttal, I will put in words what I believe my opponent comprehends as my question. Are people born in Europe or in the US more responsible for the death of people born before and after Native Americans with European descent? There would be two answers to that question. The first one would be Europeans. They would be more responsible with it before Native Americans with their descent. The second would be the US (i.e NA with Euro s). This is directly because their were no Europeans at the time and the wars the US had internally. In this case though, if I would put into context my belief here's how it would go. Are Native Americans with euro descent (US) or Europeans responsible for the most deaths of NON-EURO Native Americans. The obvious answer would be Europeans as they put 90% of them off the map by 1875 roughly through disease. Final statement: My final statement is through my opponents view, it would be both sides. Before, Europe, After, the US. But in my belief it is a clear answer as they are responsible with 90% of death amongst non-euro NA (which far outnumbered in death the US caused), it is Europe. I will accept my opponent's argument and await response. source: http://www.earlyamerica.com...
Why video games are good for you.

I would like to make an argument with your statement, ' kid spend way to mush time in front of the tv screen they can become fat,volint, and can cause seizure and that is just some of the reasons'. Many kids gain weight every day, I play video games many times a day, but I play sports and don't eat a lot. When I play video games, yeah I might eat chips, but I work it off, in many video games statisticts have shown that for Wii Fit people have lost weight, COD and Battlefield aren't the ONLY video games on the planet.
The minimum legal age of marriage in the USA ought to be raised.

ThesisThe plan of contention is "Resolved: The minimum legal age of marriage in the United States of America ought to be raised to 21 years old. " I will argue that Congress should pass a law requiring that the absolute minimum age of marriage be 21 year old. Of course, any existing laws which mandate or allow marriage under the age of 21 will be eliminated and made legally null. This debate will conform to improved voting standards, has a 10k character limit, and uses a select the winner voting system. Eligible voters have at least 1000 elo points. The debate is impossible to accept, apply in comments. Definitions:United States of America: The federalist entity consisting of three governing branches (legislative, executive and judicial), located in geographic North America and outlined in "The Constitution of United States of America" (1789) . Ought: Denoting a moral or ethical obligation,Rules:-UPON ACCEPTANCE OF THIS DEBATE YOU CONSENT TO PARTICIPATION IN THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED HIGHER VOTING STANDARDS, FOUND HERE:. https://docs.google.com......-Kritiks are allowed-Don't forfeit.
It's Time to Establish a Fashion Police Force

A- I am glad that my opponent agrees with me on this point. B- As a compromise, I would agree to the stripping as a warning, but it would have to be carried out swiftly and after knocking them out with poisoned blow-darts or nunchaku blows to the back of the head. However, in order to maintain secrecy, they should be killed immediately upon second infraction. C- It goes without saying that sleazy Chinese an Indian factory owners would be assassinated as well. The geisha girls are no worry, because ninjas are inhuman, emotionless killing machines. I must disagree with my opponent's proposal for the fashion police in conjunction with this ninja task force because only the ninja task force is necessary. Having both operate, especially one legally and the other illegally, would lead to internal disputes over jurisdiction and such. Since the ninja army is the more effective one, I propose that instead. I thank my opponent and the audience. Everyone who votes CON gets a geisha girl. Everyone who votes PRO will be visited by a ninja assassin. Thank you.
It's Time to Establish a Fashion Police Force

With many thanks to Kleptin for his considered rebuttal, I should like to respond to each of the points he raised as follows: A - I can see the advantages of a secretive undercover government agency that operates in the shadows, acting on tip-offs and executing summary justice on forged fashion offenders and, therefore, I'll let this one slide. B - Yes, this will spread fear and suspicion amongst members the counterfeit clothing community - I like it, though I think that killing offenders may be a bit harsh. Perhaps, at least in the case of first-time offenders, they should merely be stripped of their replica tops and pants, which will then be burnt on the spot. This will mean that the faux-fashion felons will be forced to walk home semi-naked, much to their embarrassment and the amusement of decent, law-abiding citizens. C – A cross-border ninja fashion militia has an appeal, but would run the risk of becoming unaccountable, and potentially open to corruption from sleazy Chinese and Indian factory owners who might employ geisha girls to persuade the ninjas to turn a blind eye to wearers of their own products. Otherwise, it is a good idea. Perhaps the best compromise would be to have a uniformed fashion police, modelled on the French and Italian concept in order to provide a deterrent and have them backed up by ninja snatch squads who will operate below the radar of the law and free from the constraints of public accountability? Thank you.
It's Time to Establish a Fashion Police Force

While I agree with my opponent on nearly everything that he has said, I disagree with his way of going about doing it. A Police Force is simply not enough, as these miserable wretches of society need more disciplining than a simple police force can handle. Furthermore, my opponent's link only showed that the French and Italians are only persecuting people for BUYING fake designer goods when they should really be punishing people for WEARING them. This blatantly confirms my long held suspicion over the complete moral bankruptcy of the French and Italians, despite the fact that their salad dressings are so delicious. Perhaps *too* delicious. Why should the manufacturers and distributors of fake goods be punished when the real blame lies with those who wear them? After all, the real crime here is the effect their false facade has on the rest of society. The police force that my opponent describes is unfit for a matter of such great significance. Only with a ninja-army could we carry this plan out to fruition. My reasons are as follows: A. The existence of a police force would be too out in the open. There will be resistance and attempts to bypass their authority. A secret ninja army could operate swiftly and silently. B. Police must operate within legal limits. A ninja army could simply assassinate the posers without warning, and through bloodshed, other people will start to get the idea. C. Police jurisdiction has limits. A Ninja Army will have global reach. Thus, I am against my opponent's proposal for a Fashion Police force modeled after the ones in Italy and France. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
It's Time to Establish a Fashion Police Force

"Buy the best quality you can afford" has always been a worthy maxim. Of course, you pay for what you get and items produced by manufacturers that have a reputation for superior quality and flair, generically described as ‘designer goods', naturally command a premium price. Unfortunately, however, these manufacturer's logos are sometimes prominently displayed on the exterior of their products. By purchasing such an item, the owner is saying: "Look at me. I am vulgar and pretentious and have absolutely no taste or panache whatsoever, but never mind that, I am successful and can afford to wear the best quality clothing / jewellery / watch / shoes / sunglasses that money can buy." It's bad enough to flaunt one's wealth by wearing gaudy designer clothes, but what if you are a common and garish individual and haven't won the lottery or married a Premiership footballer or you don't run a business peddling drugs to schoolchildren or if you aren't a spiv employed by an investment bank to swindle future pensioners out of their hard-earned retirement funds? Well, if you can't afford the genuine article, you can always buy a fake. Now, what the owners of such items are saying is: "Look at me. I am wearing genuine designer gear, honest I am, but don't come too close because then you'll be able to see that it is actually made from cheap nylon and is getting all tatty and frayed at the edges." Pathetic. Please look at the two men in this picture: http://img.dailymail.co.uk... Which one of them do you think was born in to an aristocratic family and was educated at Eton and Oxford? What's that I hear? It's the one in the background with his hand down his pants because his hoody has got designer labels all over it and, therefore, he must be the one with the most class. Wrong! It's the one in the foreground (David Cameron, Leader of the Opposition). His suit doesn't have a label on the lapel but you can rest assured it was purchased from a bespoke tailor in Saville Row and cost him thousands of Pounds whereas, to me, the gentleman in the background looks as though he acquired his entire wardrobe from some dodgy geezer who goes round the pubs knocking out moody gear from a carrier bag. Thankfully, however, those guardians of style and sophistication, those paragons understated elegance: the French and the Italians; have stepped up to the mark and have started prosecuting the owners of fake designer gear. http://news.bbc.co.uk... I strongly believe that other governments should follow the lead of France and Italy and establish Fashion Police Forces in order to rid our streets of those uncouth poseurs who go about wearing designer rip-offs. Thank you.
The Beatles made music what it is today

On the grounds that my arguments went unanswered I think it would be fair to suggest that the debate has ended, and I will propose no further arguments at this time. On the off-chance that my opponent wishes to change their mind and debate this with me, however, I look forward to his/her responses to my previous arguments. Thanks in advance to voters in this debate, for their time- I'd hate to see this one go to a draw!
The Beatles made music what it is today

My argument is this: The Beatles were the most innovative band of the 1960's, they changed music and pop culture almost overnight. What is not in question is whether or not someone would have done it later. The question is what did The Beatles do? For starters, The Beatles were the first group to ever film and release their own music videos. Due to the overwhelming nature of "Beatlemania", the group decided to get their music out by way of music videos. Something which no group had done at that point. Not only did they make one, they made many. Including "Hello, Goodbye", "Rain", "Paperback Writer", "Penny Lane", "Strawberry Fields", the list goes on. Another point to my argument is that no group until The Beatles had used technology in such an innovative matter. Until The Beatles, playing recordings/samples backward in a song was completely unheard of. I'm not talking about playing it backward on your own with a vinyl record. They actually used backwards playback in "Rain" and "Paperback Writer". No band has ever achieved the amount of fame that The Beatles did before or after their career ended. "Beatlemania" is a stand alone wave of popularity that has yet to be matched to this day and we live in 2015. How did this change music? Music videos took off after the creation which produced such things as MTV (before it became a reality TV station), TRL, and VH1. The creative use of technology in the music studio started a whole wave that we know as "psychedelic" music. How did "Beatlemania" change music? It turned music from just easy listening to a 24/7 phenomena that it has become today. The Beatles were the first group to reach such popularity that instead of a few fans following an artist around, it became hordes of people, interviewers, paparazzi. People took an interest in not just the music anymore, but the artists themselves. Who they are, what they like, what they don't like, where they come from, the creative process. Until The Beatles arrived this was pretty much unheard of. Not to mention, stadium concerts? Until The Beatles arrived, nobody had ever player or sold out an entire stadium. I speak of Shea Stadium in NY. In their time 50,000 fans was astronomical. Had that not have taken place, concerts at MSG might not be a possibility. Once again, I would like to state that the argument of whether someone would have done it after or not is not pertinent to this debate. Everybody wanted to be the Beatles in the 60's. It was almost comical to see other groups try to imitate them so close that it was almost reaching plagiarism. To this day artists get inspiration from all the Beatles have done. Their music has become timeless in a group that includes the names of Beethoven, Elvis Presely, and Bach. So, I now leave my opponent with his turn in the debate. I look forward to your rebuttal. Thank you.