BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Advertisements Do More Harm Than Good

Thank you, joshuaXlawyer for accepting this challenge. I look forward to debating with you.As this is the first true round, I will start with my three main points.1. Commercials are Annoying in General "Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless." -- Sinclair Lewis (American Writer)Almost all television watchers know how annoying infomercials can be. They take up TV time with, in many cases, products that the watcher is not interested in purchasing. However, there is more to it than that.Some commercials fall into the category of repetition. These particular ads are shown too many times a day. They can also repeat information over and over again. Take the Head-on commercial for example (search for it on YouTube). "Head-On, apply directly to the forehead" is said three times consecutively. Does it cure acne? Does it relieve headaches? These unanswered questions leave the watcher to wonder what the product is supposed to do, let alone purchase it.Other commercials may have unnecessary salespeople. Watch a car commercial, and you'd understand.Finally, many infomercials contain tricks, catches, and gimmicks, many of which are not shown to the consumer. Companies obviously want the positives about their products on commercials. Therefore, they may hide negative information such as “just pay separate shipping and handling” and “taxes and other charges apply” in fast talking and small, barely-readable fonts. This fact is inconvenient for the consumer.2. The Products Usually Do Not Work(1) http://abcnews.go.com...The source above describes of an "Infomercial Junkie," a so-called consumer who purchases commercial products from television infomercials excessively. Although I have not found anything directly stated in the source that the products do not work, I do remember Yahoo! News once reporting on this event on their homepage. The headline stated that, out of the hundreds of products she had purchased, none of those products have changed her life.Once, I had purchased a toothpaste dispenser on television. The commercial promised an easier and cleaner way of dispensing toothpaste besides using a tube. It worked for the first month, but eventually did become messy and malfunctional. It turned out that I eventually went back to using a tube.3. Ads Tend to Benefit Only Large Companies Rather than the General PublicAmerica itself, if you have been hearing the news lately, has been having financial issues of its own. Many people knee-deep in debt do not need to buy more products, especially ones that do not work. Therefore, commercials are unnecessary in tempting those in debt to spend more money.Therefore, advertisements tend to benefit the larger companies selling cheap products at high prices. At the same time, the general public makes up the majority of the business world. Needless to say, ads help a small group while mildly harming the larger one.I now conclude my portion of this round. Good luck to my contender in his part of round 2.
Advertisements Do More Harm Than Good

We have all seen commercials: on television, on websites, on phone lines, and even on highway billboards. But when do we think about them? More specifically, where can we complain about their drawbacks? This debate discusses whether or not advertisements (that is, commercials on television, billboards, signs, Internet ads, etc.) are beneficial to the majority of people in a society. I will take the Pro/For side of this debate: I believe advertisements do more harm than good. By accepting this challenge, you are saying that advertisements are good. Basic Rules and Agreements: 1. No vulgar, slang, or other offensive language is allowed. 2. Intentional spelling or grammar errors are not permissible. 3. The first round is for introduction and agreement purposes. 4. If sources are used, they must be cited with URLs or titles of books. Please post a comment in case there are ambiguities in the topic or agreements of this debate.
If the Christian God exists, then Satan created mankind.

Thank you for instigating this debate. My opponent should technically have the BOP for this since he wants to dismiss the entire use of the Bible and then claims Satan created humans. My opponent doesn’t want me to use the Bible as a source because humans wrote the Bible and Satan supposedly created humans. This doesn’t make sense. If Satan created humans then Satan would have kept the Bible from existing at all, for the Bible is the source of morality given to humans, and without the Bible humans would end up destroying themselves through their own broken sense of morality. Satan would have wanted humans to decide for themselves what is “moral” and what is not because he knows humans are misguided in morality. What would make much more sense is that God influenced the writers of the Bible to create a book that would help humans in becoming closer to God, obeying him, acting upon his will, and spreading the word of God. The Bible has influenced humans in doing the listed examples therefore we can logically conclude that God did indeed inspire humans to write the Bible, and Satan did not. My opponent claims that because humans do evil acts, Satan created them, because Satan naturally wants humans to do evil. This also cannot be true. For one, humans are within the ability to hold a perfect relationship with God, and completely avoid sin. This is shown through the sinless life of Mary, Mother of Jesus, and Jesus himself who was fully human (Implying Satan created the Son of God? I think not.) and fully divine (yeah, this would imply that Satan is God). This means that humans choose to sin, not that they are inherently evil. This would imply that something (Satan) tempts them into sin, which after all is what the Bible says and I already showed that the Bible must have been the work of God. What God did was create humans with free will. For God didn’t want humans to be mindless creatures that obey him always, God wanted humans to come to him of their own will, out of love, and out of the desire to do good and be with God in Heaven. A mindless creature simply cannot truly fulfill these things, so God created us with the ability to choose. Out of our ability to choose we were able to disregard God, and do what we want. Satan desires this because he detests God, so Satan tempts mankind into sin. If Satan did create humans, then Satan would have created mindless creatures that would always detest God, always commit evil acts, and never do good. However, the fact that good exists at all, and the fact that Jesus and Mary led the lives of the perfect Christian God calls us to be, then we can logically conclude that Satan did not create humans.
If the Christian God exists, then Satan created mankind.

God:A being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe Con will have one round to invalidate my claim. Con may not use the bible to disprove me, as it was written by man, and therefore cannot be trusted anymore than Satan himself.----------------------------------------------------------------God, with all it's wisdom, would not create mankind. We are a plague on this world. Ecosystems require balance. Mankind is far, far, beyond imbalance. Sixty-one. That is the number of species that have gone extinct because of mankind. (too difficult to list them all with my phone) http://en.m.wikipedia.org... These were all God's creatures. Every last one of them. And we killed them all. And God supposedly created us? Surely God wouldn't want this. For his creatures to die, for no reason but our sad, greedy, materialistic little minds?But Satan! Satan would rejoice in the destruction of Gods creations! Satan would have had every reason to create imbalanced creatures such as ourselves.And yet, God, as the epitome of goodness, still does not destroy us. In fact, it gives us the chance to save ourselves. Pledge ourselves to God, and we will be saved from an eternity in the inferno of torment that is hell! For as all good Christians know: Not accepting God into your life and your hearts is the only sin damning enough to deserve hell as its punishment.And God, a being of ultimate wisdom, would not create free thinking creatures, able to believe what they want, and still expect them to believe in him against all rational thought! For this would be cruel. And God is not cruel. God is the epitome of all that is good and benevolent.And so we, mankind, must have been created by Satan. There is no other possible explanation!
Schools mandatory drug tests

School students, grades 6 through 12, should be required to face a mandatory drug test. It has been shown over the years that school violence has increased and that there is a correlation between drugs and violence. Also, by requiring this of these students we would be protecting them and promoting drug prevention. In 2002, students, ages 12 to 18, were victims of about 1.9 million total crimes of violence or theft at school. In that same year 128,000 serious violent crimes at schools were reported. Another study showed that 29 percent of students in grades 9 through 12 reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the last 12 months. By requiring these drug tests we are saying that it is not okay for this violence and drug use to happen, we are being proactive about the situation. We are protecting our kids from not only themselves and the dangerous situations they get themselves into but from peer pressure and violence associated with drugs. We are also protecting their education and their right to go to school and learn in a safe and secure environment. This program would also be good for drug prevention. In the years between 1994 and 2000 student drug abuse increased from 30 to 39 percent. By taking this more hands-on approach we would be making it harder for them to get, use, and distribute these drugs to students. If the punishments for breaking the rules are harsh enough I believe you will see a steady decrease in the amount of drug use among students.
Schools mandatory drug tests

I agree that there are many problems that young people face today, more than there were in the past, but we cannot just leave it up to the parents. Maybe you and I had parents that were always there, ones that looked out for us and kept us from harm, kept us on the right path, but not every young person has that. Many of the students doing drugs are supervised for little and those affiliated with gangs are looking for family, someone they can look up to and who they think will "protect" them. I know that school budgets are decreasing and teachers are finding it more difficult to get the materials they need but with the increasing drug use, violence and drop out rates associated with drugs I feel we can make room in the budgets. Parents may be upset and feel this puts strain on them and criminalizes their kids but they would be wrong and abruptly reacting to something new and uncertain. In the end we would be protecting that money (that investment) that they put into their children's education. And I know that explanations would be needed of why ALL students are required to take the drug test but I feel it keeps the school out of any discrimination claims and actually keeps from criminalizing a set minority of students.
Schools mandatory drug tests

How do you know by "getting rid" of this problem, a new one will not spring up in its place? You talk about the children's future and how we have to protect it, that it is our duty. There are numerous things besides drugs (violence, family issues, teen pregnancy, etc.) that could run their futures off course. Who's to say that drugs are the things to focus on? Why out of all of this do we choose drugs? Is there not a better way to address these problems facing or children without turning them all into criminals. We are not giving them a chance (or support) to become something if at the first moment of doubt we accuse them of the worst. No parent wants to acknowledge that their children are using drugs but it is a reality these days. Why is it the schools problem to solve this? The parents should become more proactive; take more responsibility for not watching after their kids and protecting their futures. If anyone should want a kid to prosper, it should be his/her own parent. We should leave the punishing and drug testing up to the parents and leave the education up to the schools. The money that would go towards this testing could be used in better ways. Schools always need new technologies and books, and if you want to keep kids off the street, invest in some after school programs that are educational and fun.
Schools mandatory drug tests

First of all, you can't know if something is going to work without first trying it. It may seem like the easiest solution to you but it would take a lot of effort on the schools' part and the states' part to enforce and fund this program. When it comes to the debate about private and public school I think it should include both. This is about protection of all our children, not about discrimination and alienation. You may see this as punishment but it is more protection than anything. Kids need to feel they have a safe environment they can come to, to learn, escape the hardships of their lives, and to grow as individuals. This cannot be done properly if around every hallway corner someone is offering them drugs. I find 29 percent to be extremely high when it comes to students being offered, sold, or given drugs. That is over a fourth of the student population whose chances of graduating are greatly decreased. It is unjust not to try and protect them, from themselves and from others. I also do not think that this program could increase drop out rates. By giving the students a safe and secure place they feel they can come to and learn in, we would be securing them a good future. We would be taking away the gangs' drug relationships in schools, taking away their clientele, money sources, and reinforcing the idea that drugs are not a future to students and future generations.
Schools mandatory drug tests

I do not agree with this. I do not feel that all school students, no matter what grade, should be subjected to mandatory drug tests. By allowing this we are punishing all for the crimes of some and taking away students' rights. Also who's to say whether it's all schools or just public schools, and if this new rule would not increase the drop out rates. By allowing for this rule to be enforced we are saying its is okay to punish everyone for the crimes of some. We are punishing those good students who have done nothing but work hard to be where they are. It criminalizes everyone, leaving no room for differentiation. Mandatory drug testing is taking away these students' rights. We are punishing without cause, punishing everyone because you think some students could possibly be using drugs. Where is the fairness in that? And to make matters worse who is to say that both private and public school students are subject to these drug tests. Would the private schools have the choice to opt out and do nothing? This leaves public school children at a disadvantage and discriminated against. Also, who's to say these drug tests would not increase the drop out rate especially with schools with increased gang affiliation. Students could still choose to do drugs and accept the punishments (certain students may think it makes them look cooler) or they could get more pressure from the outside (gangs, etc.) to quit school because better business could be done elsewhere. How do we know this is what is best for everyone or is it just the "easiest" solution to a growing problem?
Religion can cause more harm than it does good

Please excuse me for my obnoxious introduction for I am new to this site, and hopefully In the coming months I will be able to become accustom to publishing a debate on here in the correct manner. Again, I would like to take the time to thank Con for accepting my challenege. First, Let me clarify moral. Moral - a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. Islam is the arabic word for submit, Muslim is the one who submits, and the most common greeting in Arabic for peace is "salaam". The Qur'an stresses that religion is not compulsive. In any religion, non-believers deserve the respect of those who are. The following verses that are also found in the Qur'an : 5:8 "O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of any-one lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious. And remain conscious of God: verily, God is aware of all that you do." 2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. Religion itsself does not need to indicate the existence of right and wrong, for if there was no religion, an Atheist for example would agree that there is a borderline between whats good and bad. Religion, for as long as we know, has produced a lot of good in the lives of mankind. The process of teaching Goodwill - "We must be bright and cheerful. Long faces do not make religion. Religion should be the most joyful thing in the world, because it is the best." " Swami Vivekananda "We must treat others as we wish others to treat us" - Two passages from Gospels quote Jesus Christ in espousing the Golden Rule. "Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets." " Matthew 7:12 Inspired by studying religion, is the urge to become more knowledgeable. Because some can not just settle on a materialistic perception of life, the motive for attaining knowledge has inevitably led to the development of civilization. Music, another known aspect of religion has led to the creation of "illahi" and spiritual music consisting of sublime that soothes and comforts the soul. With all that said, religion can do more good than bad.
Religion can cause more harm than it does good

I accept Pros challenge on the debate regarding "Religion can cause more harm than it does good." First and foremost, the opponent was unclear in his argument of "harm" and "good". Before moving on I will need to clarify what the opposing side is implying by "harm" and "good." Here we can define HARM according to Google.com a "physical injury which is deliberately inflicted." GOOD can be defined as a moral characteristic and a Google search of the definition of "Good" concludes that good is to be desired or approved of. With that said the question now is, Does religion help to aid in inflicting pain (physical/emotional) predominantly than producing the element of good morals and or desires. Now lets define religion; religion is a system of "faith and worship" (google.com). I am assuming that the opponent already knows or at least has an idea of the morals behind religion. Let me start this argument by emphasizing the fact that it would be nonsensical to point fingers to religion as the culprit for the wrong doing of others. If someone took a gun and shot and killed me, blaming the gun would be illogical because the gun killed me; however, there was a mastermind behind the result of the gun shooting at me. We can apply the same analogy here. Religion was created for practicing good morals, submitting to God, to be humble, to obey, to respect. All of these are desirable or "good" characteristics. It is the extremists who pollute the true beauty of religion. An extremist is one who resorts to certain action influenced by a fanatical political or religious view. Let me reiterate that religion exercises good moral and the quality of be humble and respectful and honor and dignity. Another way of expressing fanaticism would be a "radical" or a "bigot" and these qualities contradict the whole moral values that religion instill in us. A certain person's actions should not hold religion accountable, that is because no human is perfect, there will always be good and evil; right and wrong. We should not judge religion based off of a person, but rather by the book.
ENOUGH with the god exists debate!

In my previous post, I argued that the existence of God is a settled issue, because the fact that there is no evidence for God (which my opponent concedes) shows that believing in God is irrational. My opponent conceded this argument, but argued that it only shows that we should stop debating about God's existence, because the debate is settled. This does not address my point that debating the existence of God could help spread the message that the debate is settled. Perhaps my opponent intended to address this concern when he said that not debating the existence of God could save us valuable time, and that firm believers aren't swayed by logic anyway. With regard to the second point, it simply is not true that Christians never become atheists on the basis of arguments. The internet is full of atheists who were once firm Christians, but considered the arguments and decided to give up their belief in God. So, the debate comes down to my opponent's first point, that not debating the existence of God would save us valuable time. The question is whether the time it would save outweighs the political ramifications of theism, including the policies of banning abortion and gay marriage that people base on it (and which my opponent has not addressed). It seems pretty clear that the latter outweighs the former. Banning abortion and gay marriage have substantial concrete effects on millions of people, whereas saving the time we spend debating the existence of God would only save the subset of people who are interested in the issue the hours they spend debating it (personally, I find debating the existence of God enjoyable, not a waste of time).
ENOUGH with the god exists debate!

"1. The fact that there is no evidence for God does settle the debate, because it shows that believing in God is irrational."Exactly! Shut all the debating already, there isn't more evidence! "2. Widespread acceptance of the fact that believing in God is irrational would have a dramatic effect on our lives and public policy."A good widespread effect, such as immense saving of time and no power for the monopolizing of religion. If we continue to debate the existence of God, we waste valuable time to convince people that God is irrational. Moreover, firm believers aren't swayed by argument of logic when it comes to religion. That why the majority aren't atheists or agnostics.This was a fun debate. To conclude, stop debating existence of God.
ENOUGH with the god exists debate!

Exactly, this has been debated from the Greek era and till now, we have failed to reach a conclusion. What makes you think we will reach one? In the past few centuries, we haven't acquired substantial new evidence to discredit or prove God's existence. The amount of time wasted debating on a mere conjecture could have been used to pursue other productive activities, especially since its hard to convince anyone of changing their opinion because of lack of proof, and it is just an opinion, nothing more. Debating on existence of God is just as useful as debating the existence of Transformers. I could easily say they live in an unexplored part of the universe, and there will be no way to prove otherwise.
ENOUGH with the god exists debate!

I disagree, the existence of God is one of the great debates of the ages. Even the ancient Greek philosophers debated the existence of God and put forward arguments for God's existence. Moreover, the issue has personal relevance to each of us and the alleged existence of God is the basis for many of the most controversial political proposals of today, like banning abortion and gay marriage. If anything, we're not debating the existence of God enough.