BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Young adult fiction does more good than harm.

Thank you for your arguments. Refutation to contention 1: Violence Eh, I don't find much logic in this case, but nevertheless I will try to refute it. No offense, seriously. First of all, books can represent violence, but movies represent violence even more. Why don't we just ban movies then? Second, books can be avoided, so violence-haters are not forced to read it. It is there just as entertainment for the people who want it. So therefore even if violence may be represented, it has little harm, if there isn't harm at all. Refutation to contention 2: Might get very creative ideas We are talking about young adults, unfortunately. And YA novels are suited to YA audiences, so there wouldn't be much harm. A 8 year old child is not in the age group. And even if he/she wants to imitate a wizard, why not? I mean, what's the harm? Why not let them get a little creative, have a childhood? When they grow up they will lose that habit, right? It's not like they would try to jump off a building and try to levitate themselves with a twig. Not going to happen, buddy. Refutation to contention 3: Religion Yes, I am Christian. And I read Percy Jackson. Do I believe in Greek Gods? No. Refuted. Nah, just kidding. But I mean, you wouldn't possibly believe in something just because it's in a book. You can read it for entertainment, but you could obviously realize that you are already a christian, or jew, or whatever. You wouldn't be brainwashed by a book, am I right? And even if this is not so, strict religionists would stray away from books that goes against their beliefs, as with my 1st refutation. It is there as an option, but not mandatory. So there it is. By the way, just a heads up: you're supposed to refute my contentions. So, yeah, that's it!
Young adult fiction does more good than harm.

Ok, here we go for my first argument I will be talking about the violent aspect. 1.Violence As everyone knows in the Twilight series there is two main "men" in the book, Jacob and Edward. Also we know that girls can get very aggressive so girls might start fighting and arguing about who is better, Team Jacob or Team Edward. Second these book are filled with violence that some younger preteens might attempt to repeat. 2.Might Get Very Creative Ideas By this I mean that some people are not mature enough to know they aren't to repeat everything they see. Even if they are YA they still might not be mature enough. Also if a younger child of the age of 8 read a Harry Potter book they might try to imitate trying to be a wizard. 3.Religion As you being a Christian as well as me you should be able to understand this next point. Christians would not like these books because of the witchcraft and such goes against the beliefs that there is no such thing as witches and that only God can make miracles. These are my arguments.
Young adult fiction does more good than harm.

Ok, here we go. Contention 1: Popular/Generates Revenue Who hasn't heard of Twilight? Or Harry Potter? These books are immensely popular, and they have a remarkable market. Teenagers love them. Not only do teenagers read them, but also adults, and younger audiences. And the purpose why YA (young adult fiction) even exists is for entertainment. What's the harm? If people love them, and it is meant to entertain the people, then how does it harm? Obviously, the main purpose of these books (satisfying readers) is fulfilled, so there is absolutely no reason why it will do harm to readers. And besides, since they are popular, they are bought a lot. Therefore these books generate a lot of revenue for the government and can reduce the debt, so this is another benefit. Contention 2: Stepping Stone What I mean by this is that it is a "stepping stone" from books like Percy Jackson, for audiences 8-12, to books like a Song of Ice and Fire intended for full-grown adults. Without this readers in between would have no books to read, and they would have to transfer from Percy Jackson, where everything, the battles, the romance, and the vocabulary is mild, to adult books where kids can only recognize about 1 out of every 10 words- well, not that extreme, but something like that. The impact of this is that it serves as a bridge between different books intended for different age groups, and without this, kids will have a harder time reading adult books as they cannot gradually transfer. Think of it like this- with YA, it is like a sloped path, but without YA, it is a sudden vertical rise that cannot possibly be traveled across. Contention 3: Main Book Supply for Young Adults (Teenagers) Without YA books, then what could YA read? YA books are intended for YA audiences, and without them, duh- YA have nothing to read about. First of all, this means they will not read, therefore losing vocabulary and reading practice, which is important. Second, they will be bored, and will resort to video games, which is not nearly as good as YA books. Third, YA book writers will lose their jobs. All these impacts are pretty significant. I await your arguments. You can refute if you want.
Young adult fiction does more good than harm.

Hi Xboy57, you wanted me to challenge you to a debate so I came up with a topic. I am for pro side. Today I will debate whether young adult fiction books do more good than harm, and I say more good. I define young adult fiction as books such as Harry Potter, Twilight, etc. My 3 main contentions are here, but I will elaborate in the next round: Contention 1: Popular/Generates Revenue Contention 2: Stepping stone Contention 3: Main book supply for young adults (A.K.A teenagers) Once you accept, I will elaborate in the next round. Good luck!
globel warming is the result of human activity

The subject being "Global Warming is the result of Human Activity" Also known as Man-Made Global Warming I have fought this belief in a previous debate and it only seems fit to me to use the same opening argument. So begins the debate, thank you Rune for the subject and thank you readers for viewing my points. The earth is warming up... DUH! but why is the earth warming? my goal in this debate it to fight off the common theory that we are the couse of Global Warming. Global warming is a corner stone issue with many news media programs, as well as a corner stone issue for the democratic party. I had the privilege of talking to a scientist who testified as well as 6 others in front of congress. He says, and i quote "The largest production of Carbon Dioxide in the world isn't even close to use, its in the ocean, its plankton." He also told me that we have very little if any effect on the worlds climate. he says that the second largest production comes from south America in the rain forest (in which he spent 10 years in studying). He says that the trees in the rain forest store carbon dioxide for hard times when they need energy, when the hard times don't come and the tree is fully grown they let out the carbon dioxide. My first statement is that we have little effect on our environment.
The world would be better off with less people.

I will win because Im_always_right. The votes may seem to say padfo0t wins, but really I am right. The world would be better off if per capida the population was informed of the issues at hand, like how Kix is bad for a hamster's health. It would also help if the people used less fossil fuels so a simpler solution would be to have people have a limit to how much oil each person can use, and that would be alot easier to enforce than going back in time, and not allowing some of us to even be born. It is also more likely to happen and can help solve the problem. Also, theoretically, if this did happen, then what if Ben Franklin was never born? Who would be on $100 bills???? And invent all the stuff he made.
The world would be better off with less people.

I thank my friend Padf00t for offering this debate to me. "First I would like to say that Confucius is sometimes wrong." WTF did that come from?! (W=Where in this case) "Second, Kix are not good for hamster's health." LOL, that has nothing to do with the debate, so will not argue here. Also didn't you say Chip ate 7 peices? "Third, no one else will know what we(I) am talking about because it nuna their business." I disagree, even though it is "nuna their business", they do not know because they were not informed of the issue at hand, with your mouster. "Fourth and of the least importance:" ^ is what the debate is about! So most important. "1) More food." 1) less people to make the food. "2) Less pollution=better air" 2) The air wont get any better. "3) More job opportunities" 3) Less need for jobs. "4) Im always right hee hee" WTF?! (W=What as ussual again) Also: How much less? By less you could mean like 1, person is keeping the world from being such a wonderful place. If my opponent means many people were gone, then that wouldn't be beneficial to EVERYONE. Is he offering his family to have cleaner air? It would not be beneficial to everyone. Also think of all the now domestic animals like cats, dogs hamsters, mousters, and all the other pets people enjoy, that can't survive in the wild very easily. Many of them don't have homes, and have to be put to sleep. With this knowlage I contend, the world would not be better off with less people. Not just people but domestic animals as well. ============================================================================ Thank you ladies and gentlemen, of the jury. ============================================================================
The world would be better off with less people.

Hello im_always_right. First I would like to say that Confucius is sometimes wrong. Second, Kix are not good for hamster's health. Third, no one else will know what we(I) am talking about because it nuna their business. Fourth and of the least importance: The world would indeed be much better off with less people. 1) More food. 2) Less pollution=better air 3) More job opportunities 4) Im always right hee hee
Legalizing Marijuana

http://www.cannabisnews.org... Further more, I believe the use of marijuana is, in the majority, for status quo among young people. Should it be legalized, this would be more accesible to younger audiences. Thus creating a dangerous enviroment in whice no one could be 100% sure of their saftey and the safety of their children. Also, while the affects of marijuana are largely unknown, I myself have used marijuana and I know the negative affects it can cause. Mind you I have been clean of any drugs for over a year. In conclusion, I believe leagalizing marijuana is a bad idea for these reasons. Thank you for the opportunity to state my beliefs on such a controversial topic. Good luck to you.
Euthanasia YES

What happens if I don't experience these objective goods? What if my quality of life is so diminished that it places a financial burden on my family and an emotional burden on me. Once my quality of life is degraded, I can't do anything. I'm only a waste of resources and time. I might as well be put out of my misery if I am just taking space, time, and the money of others when I can't do anything for myself. It would help my family financially and emotionally to just let me go.
Euthanasia YES

Hello, highway2hell! Thank you for sending me this compelling argument. I would like to argue against euthanasia. Your right to death is perfectly justified, however your right to kill yourself is not. Everyone has a right to die because it is an undeniable, guaranteed part of life, but we cannot intentionally kill ourselves because it is suicide in and of itself. In today's society, the majority of people find suffering to be the worst of evils in this world, however so many beautiful goods can be taken from suffering. How one responds to suffering determines the good that will result.
security is greater than liberty

con argues it is never harmful to have too much liberty. that is just wrong. if we can wiretap Bob and prevent a terrorist attack, it is harmful to not wire tap him in the name of giving more liberty to the population. con argues it is bette to be dead than have no liberty. didn't make it an either or proposition though. i said major intrussions are probably not good or needed. but overall, security over death is a good thing. we'd rather live than be inconveienced and intruded upon sometimes con argues it is a slippery slope from where we are now with spying and such and something like Nazi germany. one can always tell an argument is weak when it starts down the road of comparing things to hitler and the nazis. sure, it could go that route. but most governments have spying programs and such and do not turn into something like nazi germany. con argues the NSA is not effective at stopping crime, but that the FBI and CIA are. basic logic shows that this is not true. if you can get more info illegally, we are better off for it. the question is not whether we can decrease security attacks and such....the question is whteher it is just and moral to infringe on people's rights some times. and to that, i argue it is.
security is greater than liberty

security is greater than liberty it is common, and frankly par for the course, for people to quote many great founders, that say that he who wishes for security over liberty, deserves neither liberty or security. here i am mostly referring to things like the NSA spying on Americans and sometimes crossing the line. constitutional rights being infringed to bring us a more secure society. i draw issue. would you rather die, or have your 'rights' compromised? i agree that there is an issue with proportion. frankly, i would guess most people even if they didnt come out and say it, would be for some slight compromises so as not to die. heck, if you put it that way, most would take some major compromises. it's just not politically popular to admit. and not something people really think about enough to admit. and i could possibly agree that major compromises should not be allowed for the most part. it is mostly an issue of proportionality. what it is not, though, is all all or nothing security being trumped by liberty.
shahid afridi is the best cricket player

Thank you, sarmad5.Since this is the last round, I will not only respond to my opponent, but I will also bring attention to important facets of this debate.Negative CaseBoth arguments were dropped entirely. These arguments showed how: (A1) Shahid Afridi is nowhere near the best batsman in the world, and (A2) is nowhere near the best all-rounder in the world. Since these arguments went uncontested, they are devastating to my opponent's case as both show why Shahid Afridi is not the best cricketer in the world. I have displayed Shahid Afridi's record side-by-side on the macro-analysis that is batting average and bowling average, and I have shown how there are clearly players with better statistics than Shahid Afridi. Counter-caseMy opponent's only round of arguments does not come close to meeting the burden of proof. Firstly, his entire argument is completely unreferenced, meaning that all of his points are unsubstantiated. Secondly, even if we assume that these statistics and facts are true, why do they make him the best cricketer ever? Is the "biggest six ever hit" a true indication of cricketing greatness? As it seems, these are merely random, impressive (potentially true) facts. My opponent never defined or indicated what the requirements were for being the "best cricket player". This is a fundamental flaw with my opponent's arguments as they never begin to ascertain what the requirements are, hence the random fact recital aims to fulfil no purpose in regards to the resolution, therefore the resolution is never fulfilled.ConclusionMy opponent only provides unreferenced assertions which do not substantiate as arguments, but even if they were referenced, the burden of proof still has not been met due to my opponent failing to link the resolution with the random fact recital. Comparatively, I showed how Shahid Afridi was indeed significanly inferior to other players in some major categories. The resolution was never affirmed.
shahid afridi is the best cricket player

Despite my opponent not providing an affirmative case, I will still construct a negative case.Negative CaseA1: Donald Bradman is a much better batsman of all timeBased on test cricket, Shahid Afridi's batting average is considerably less (36.51 [1]) compared to the astounding average of Donald Bradman's of 99.94 [2]. Based on batting averages, Afridi is about a 1/3 of the batsman Donald Bradman was. Furthermore, Donald Bradman's highest score of 334 is more than double Afridi's. Donald Bradman was so much better as a batsman than Afridi that Bradman should be considered for the best cricket player over Afridi.A2: Gary Sobers is a better all-rounder of all timeFor test cricket batting-wise, Gary Sober's average of 57.78 [3] surpasses that of Afridi's (36.51 [1]). Furthermore, if you wish to consider the bowling, Sober's bowling average of 34.03 also beast Afridi's of 35.60 (lower is better). Clearly, in both batting and bowling, Sobers is better than Afridi, therefore making Afridi not the best cricket player of all time.References[1] http://www.espncricinfo.com...[2] http://www.espncricinfo.com...[3] http://www.espncricinfo.com...
do Americans live beyond their meens.

Perhaps some of the populace lives beyond their means, but in The Simple Dollar the average American family's expenses were broken down. With this it is clear that only 12% of the income is spent on "non-essentials" such as food away from home, entertainment, reading, and etc. [1] This leaves 88% of the income spent solely on "essential items". How can one live beyond their means when they mostly spend their money on essential stuff. References:Hamm, Trent. "How the Average American Family Spends Their Income - And How to Trim It - The Simple Dollar." The Simple Dollar. The Simple Dollar, 4 Jan. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2015. .
do Americans live beyond their meens.

Of course Americans live beyond their meens because they use so much of their resources. Also, look at their national debt, it is so high that the possibility of paying it off within 30 years is unthinkable and it's still rising fast. As well as there debt their food intake is very unsustainable as meet is one of them main parts of the average Americans diat. In my opinion American is no longer there country that it used to be as many of them large companies who imploded people are now based in China. This means that American has a smaller capacity to manufacture goods. Because of this America imports more than it exports which isn't good economically.
Informal: Skepticism

I will keep my forth round argument short and sweet. I believe I have already explained all my opponents arguments through my discussion on Explanatory Loops and False Knowledge Regulators. So let me take a different angle. I call this the tri-attack of daemon doom! The contention of my opponent is to prove that YOU don't know anything, because you could be a brain in a vat and blah blah blah. The key here is the YOU part. Either he is talking about "Everyone" including himself, "Everyone" not including himself or "YOU" the person reading this right now. Let me address each of these. If he is talking about "Everyone" including himself, he loses the debate because his third round argument implies that he knows that I am not a daemon and he refers to knowledge to base this contention on. If he argues that he doesn't know this, this is paramount to admitting that I am in fact a daemon, which means I win the debate. If he is talking about "Everyone" not including himself, he loses the debate because he assumes that everyone knows what The Sims is and bases his third round argument on this assumption. Also, he risks me changing his False Reality programming to trap him inside a room without a door, like a Sim. If he is talking about "YOU", the person reading this sentence as this very second, he loses the debate because I, the daemon Qualeixjar, declares YOU are the most handsome debate.org user of all and flattery will get you EVERYWHERE! BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! /end
Informal: Skepticism

Unfortunately, Richard Wrangham already wrote that in his epilogue at the end of his book Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans'. ( Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. ) This is often a malfunction that can be similarly seen to the brains of the red-headed barbet in vats. Yes, animals are also brains in vats. This was pointed out by Duncan Campbell, the 1st lord of Loch Awe in the 1400's. In psychology, they would call Con's reaction to this malfunction "cognitive dissonance. " He has actually created a virtual world within the realm of his brain in a vat. This could be similar to the infinite regress of virtual worlds programmed to create other virtual worlds. (Sims characters creating other Sim like characters on this Sim computers. ) This situation is only a result of a malfunction of certain mono-poles in Con's brain. A reaction similar to this is what other brains in vats call "the big bang," which is the giant mass collision and beginning point of the expansion of the universe and "brain in vattiness. " Please disregard Cons rambling as it is a side effect of the malfunction. Thank you.
Informal: Skepticism

The location of this debate is actually Section XHJ-019 of the Cratylus section of our Brain Vat unit, where my opponent XHY-019-74937's brain is located. Part 2, Division 3.5, Section 47 of the Brain Vat Health and Safety act of 2837AD clearly states: "No unqualified member of staff is to clean, open, modify, tamper, move or eat any part of the SRL-100 Brain Vat unit. Any violation of this code will result in immediate disembowelment. " As a member of the simulated reality design division, I am not qualified to gain access to your brain outside the vat and would risk disembowelment by doing so. My Daemon name is Qualeixjar, a denizen from the Hadesrealm and as I previously mentioned, I am a member of the Simulated Reality Design division of our Earthrealm operation. I am unable to provide evidence of this because it would cause a fatal error in the programming of this Reality which would result in a massive loss in our Brain Harvest. Since human brains are such a delicacy among my kind, such a loss would result in me having to spend between 800 and 1000 years encased in a Lava prison sorting out screws of different sizes into separate piles. I believe my extensive knowledge of such things will prove beyond doubt that I am in fact a Daemon, not one of the brain in a vat. My opponent is forming what we call a Explanatory Loop in his False Knowledge Regulator to account for my revealing myself, hence why he will continue to argue that I am not a Daemon. Without such an automated device programmed his brain would melt, causing his False Reality to disappear. We generally explain such disappearances by Alien Abduction or Spontaneous Human Combustion.
Informal: Skepticism

I would like to negate my opponents points. Point 1: It is within health regulations to remove brains from vats in Midland, Texas, where this debate is being virtually held. But if we are all brains in vats being fed information, one brain cannot remove another brain from a vat, so this negates the notion of my opponent being an evil daemon. Point 2: The false information that is being fed into my brain must be fed by a "mover" or some sort of cause. Since there is an infinite regress of potential "movers" for who set up the brain in a vat, there is actually no one to feed the information. If there is no feeder, there is no fed, thus I negate my opponents point of feeding me false information. Being that my opponent is both a brain in a vat and not an evil daemon, I have shown that his testified information is not reliable or true. Anything he says from this point on is on behalf of his lies and should be ignored by the voters. Thank you.