BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
are we to dependent on technology.

Ah, this is one of my favorite topics to talk about. I love technology. On the other hand I love antiques. 90% of my camping gear is older than I am, and quite a bit of it is older than my father! Human beings have used technology to increase our standard of living from the very beginning. Stone tools? Technology. Fire? Technology. All of civilization is predicated on the continual advancement of technology. To ask "whatever happened to the old school ways?" is to suggest that we should regress, or at best stagnate, rather than advance. Technology is an all encompassing word, that literally stands for everything we use and consume on a daily basis. That desk? It required technology to build it. Electricity that powers your fridge that keeps your food cold so you can store it until you are hungry? Technology, a lot of technology. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Technology in and of itself, is not only helpful, but vital, in the survival of the human race. However I don't feel Pro actually means we are too dependent on "technology". Rather I think Pro means, we are too dependent on computers and the internet. Especially considering he claims to be among the "computer challenged". The internet today provides everyone, with a few clicks of a button, access to all of human knowledge. Thats an incredible and powerful concept. Knowledge is Power. Computers allow access to all of that information, in fact without computers, you would have no internet. All of this knowledge is very democratizing. Take for example the revolt in Egypt. http://en.wikipedia.org... (see the Online activism and the role of social media section) In short, technology itself is vital to not only our continued high standard of living, but also to our very survival as individuals and a species. Computers and the internet, are merely an extension of that technology.
are we to dependent on technology.

I feel that people have become way to dependant on computers in the world today. Every where you look there is a computer located, you go to the doctors and there is a computer sitting in his/her office, you go to school and have whole computer labs dedicated to time you spend learning about them. Then to top it off almost every house hold in America owns a computer in which you go home and "play" on everyday. Approximately 74% of the American and Canadian population has Internet access, which allows us to read books, articles, find cooking recipes, chat with friends and learn new facts and many millions of other things. But what ever happened to the old school ways? Did books fade out for the use of the Internet and did pen and paper letters die and turn into instant messaging and writing on your face book wall? The ways we were raised are starting to drift and the new generation of computers are merging into our world. Nothing can get done without a computer today and can you imagine what the future is going to look like with all this computer technology? And what about all of us people out there who happen to be computer challenged? What will happen to us??
that fashion is harmful and has a negative impact on society and the individuals within it

your opinion, or i guess 'model' of 'that people should either be naked or wear uniforms' is an idea. nothing more. if i want to take that seriously (which it's quite hard to do) it would be impossible to enforce, and wouldn't exactly solve annything - nor does it imply 'that fashion is harmful' which i thought was the point to be debated. people are starving themselves, you say followed by something about fat people in china. firstly, it is not fashion that is starving these people, so why is that a valid point? they are choosing to starve themselves - i presume you are speaking about the model industry, and how some of them are dangerously underweight - and i'd also like to point out that aybe these people dont have any hope of gaining a different type of ob other then modelling for whatever reason, so they would be starving anyway: this way they get paid for it. clothing is unhealthy? okay, but you got any evidence for that? didn't think so. my next point is that fashion is more then clothing, it is an art form. it ios a way of expressing yourself, and should be admired. the pieces created by designers are truly amazing. the dedication and effort put into these clothes make you realise that fashion is more then an industry, its a passion. how can it be harming anyone when all it does is gives them expression, gives them a job, and most of all, gives them a passion. as well as a passion for designers, it can be an 'expression' for the consumers. people express themselves by what they choose to wear. it expresses their thoughts, feeling and gives them induviduality and uniqueness. it seperates them from the crowd, and impacts the diversity of this world. my final point is that fashion as well as a passion for designers, is a hobby for consumers. how many times do you see teens walking around with their friends at large department stores, having fun and walking into every clothes store ithin sight? this is giving them joy, not harm. yeah, i win.
that fashion is harmful and has a negative impact on society and the individuals within it

Fashion Fascists is what we are. It's about time to get rid of this stupid industry. People are starving themselves to death. Your mom now says, "Stop eating so much. Think of all the fat people in China." We cannot even leave our cages without getting dressed. Everyone should get a choice: To go naked or wear uniforms that make us look terrible. "Fashion" being the art of making yourself look terrible anyway it wouldn't change very much. Naked people would realize they don't look so bad after all. Uniform people would feel a wonderful bond. They would have something to talk about. Clothing is unhealthy. Korky has been wearing clothes again. They cut off circulation to his brain and this http://www.korky.ca... comes out.
that fashion is harmful and has a negative impact on society and the individuals within it

the fashion industry is a billion dollar industry that creates many positive opportunites throughout society. the topic can be defined as in that fashion; including but not restricted to all types and items of clothing, of trends that are considered 'fashionable' and of miscellanous items also considered fashionable - those such as cosmetics, fragrances and other accessories has a negative impact on those individuals and those of society. my first point is that the fashion industry employs some millions of people. italy alone's fashion and textile industry employs over 800, 000 workers in over 30, 000 different companies. this means that it is fashion that is creating opportunites for people to make an income, and contributes to the well being of many of its employees - assisting them with the basic neccessities that they need to get through life. if these millions of employees/employers didnt have the fashion industry, many of them would have to face a much harder life and perhaps be thrown into debt. in already a time of financial turmoil, this os why the fashion industry is crucial to modern day society and its citizens. my second point is that wealthy and successful industries such as the fashion industry are the only things keeping us from the horrors of a great depression. fashion is one of the most popular things to purchase. i mean, really, what do you enjoy more, getting new comfy, pretty clothing.... or buying some meat for dinner? personally i would rather the clothing. necause fashion is so enjoyable people purcahse it often, contributing to the countries wealth and economy - and in these times of recession, saving us from another depression. without the fashion industry we would be just a stones throw away from a horrific repeat of the 1930s depression. i hope i have convinced you that fashion is most certainly not harmful :)
that fashion is harmful and has a negative impact on society and the individuals within it

She's still out shopping. Also tattoos, nail polish, hair dye and hair spray and fake suntan coloring, injuries from pins and eye makeup in instead of around the eye, and anybody that wants to can grab your nose ring and twist it. Ouch. In the Middle Ages they tortured people by piercing their tongues. Now it brings pleasure if you say so. Just don't swallow it. Piercings look hideous. The FBI has warned us that one way to spot a terrorist is by tattoos and body piercings. I am not making this up. Fashion is certainly not gender-neutral. Men just get to wear the same old stuff. It's not fair. Fashion models would all be robots. Soon we will all be robots anyway. I favor the priest and nun style. Then we could all be priests and nuns and who knows what they're doing. People would go to prison or join the Army just to get a different uniform. Fashion is our society's way of saying that these things really matter anyway. Fashion victimizes women by giving them false values. It causes women to believe that men are looking for superficial values, so it hurts both men and women. Men appreciate a woman who can carry on an intelligent conversation. Women are fed up with men's false values such as sports, and men are also fed up with women's false values. Both are fed up with the false values we get from the media. We need to create our own value. Self-esteem is worth far more than window dressing.
that fashion is harmful and has a negative impact on society and the individuals within it

Those teens shopping for clothes are bankrupting their parents. They will be the best dressed teens in the poorhouse. As a matter of fact there are quite harmful effects from fashion, including back problems from corsets and girdles, as well as from high heeled shoes, not to mention neck problems and back problems and foot problems and everything else in between problems from high heels. Metallic poisoning from jewelry, especially piercings. Cutting off of circulation, especially by socks. Harmful effects of fabrics and chemical dyes. Chemicals, not only in clothing but in cosmetics and perfumes Many people are allergic or very sensitive to chemcals. Harmful effects to society I have brifly touched upon but also include using blood plasma for cosmetics. Robin Hair is still at large http://azstarnet.com... Here is a recent victim: http://www.finitesite.com... Robin Hair must be stopped. Perhaps my opponent will be next. One stategy is the "poison pill:" http://www.finitesite.com... She is certainly safe from Robin Hair. But at what cost? Oops, a beneficial effect of fashion. Strike that. But the real horror is sweat shops. How about those teens working in sweatshops? http://en.wikipedia.org... They could get a living wage with a few cents added to the price. Here's what money is worth anyway: http://www.prosebeforehos.com... http://www.debate.org... People could still make clothes if that's a good idea but just not wear them. There could be clothing museums where people could go to admire the clothes. Since nobody would be actually wearing them they wouldn't have to be different sizes and would last a lot longer. When you own clothes they spend most of the time in your closet. This way they would get maximum exposure and now your closet if you had one would of course be just uniforms. If you didn't have one think of the space savings. People should be permitted to take clothes home and admire them but not wear them. This way they would become pure art. Designers would be happy too since more of their art could be appreciated by more people.
All Countries Should Use the Same Currency

I know my opponent has a busy schedle since he is currently at a debate tournament himself. I respect his inability to post and ask the many readers of this debate to stay tuned to a round 2 of this debate. At the consent of DoctorDeku, I will get this debate deleted and we will start over again, either copy-and-pasting arguments or changing them, whichever one we choose. I hoep to debate you on this topic soon, DoctorDeku. Apologies for making you waste the time in creating an argument when you obviously have more important things to worry about.
All Countries Should Use the Same Currency

ResolutionAll countries should use the same currency. BoP is shared. DefinitionsAll countries: All independent nations. Use: "To employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of. "[1]Same: "Identical with what is about to be or has just been mentioned. "[2]Currency: "A generally accepted form of money, including coins and paper notes, which is issued by a government and circulated within an economy. Used as a medium of exchange for goods and services, currency is the basis for trade. "[3] Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible in your argument. No outside links including some or all of either.5. 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.6. Time to argue is 48 hours. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources [1]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: . http://www.investopedia.com...
THW Ban fast food companies from advertising to children

As I mentioned before, I wouldn't support A ban on fast food companies advertising to children. I will however be playing devil's advocate and arguging from that position.The staggering amount of advertising.4.6 billion dollars was spent on advertising unhealthy eating. In comparison, only 116 million dollars was spent on healthy foods in the year of 2012. Because of this large difference, it would obligate people, especially children to eat fast food more than they should. Due to this high amount of spending, it would lead to fast food companies likely building more resteraunts everywhere, and advertising more and more. Something should be done about this. While people are given the choice, fast food might taste good and showing it all the time will obviously make people eat it more. Thus meaning making the choice is harder. It triggers an emotional response, so it can't be blamed on the people all the time. Further more, my opponent argues that banning advertising would collapse the industry and people would loose jobs and the economy would shrink. While it may seem like this at first, eventually it will give resteraunts that sell more healthy food a chance to employ people. Further more, there are many other jobs people could seek. Slowly restricting advertising over time would also make much less of a sudden impact (if none) then an outright ban.I do not have much time left on this debate, since I forgot about it so I will end my arguments here. I will post more in the next round.
THW Ban fast food companies from advertising to children

Thank you triangle.128k for trying on the opposition side. I have stated my arguments above and I would like to hear your side of the debate in arguments and refutation in the second round please. Nevertheless, let me continue my supposedly called "rant" on my side Before I start, I have a response to Greg4586 comment Although humanity has in fact showed this to us, it is however still wrong that the freedom is taken away from bans. And I stress that in my freedom of choice argument, that we should NOT ban something the people choose to have. We cannot blame restaurants for the peoples choices. Moving on, I say that When the economy falls, peoples lives can be ruined because their job gives them money, and without that job it would be harder for them to make a living. If we make the ban right now, how will they find new jobs? And I cannot stress enough that the ban taken place is wrong due to the fact that our society chooses whether to consume "junk food" Again, thank you triangle.128k for your entry :D
THW Ban fast food companies from advertising to children

Ladies and gentleman, the resolution we are debating on today is this house would ban fast food companies from advertising to children. But let me introduce to you my side of this debate. I will be against this resolution and my first argument I would like to present is obviously the freedom of choice. Is it the fast for companies fault for advertising and making children obese? No. People in America have the right to eat whatever they want and when we ban that option, freedom is disabled to practically everyone in the united states. But let me go more in depth on this. It is simply not the companies fault, but the people's fault for choosing to buy junk food. If your holding a gun to someone and shoot, is it the gun's fault? Ladies and gentleman, the answer is no. People are responsible for their health and it is their option and fault at making themselves obese and eating at their own free will. My opponents might say that children cannot make their own decision themselves. But isn't this why we have parents? To control the way they eat and having common knowledge that giving their kids this kind of food will and might increase health risks? But it is not the companies fault, the people have a blame for this too. For enabling them to consume junk food and becoming obese. My second argument is when we ban advertising, the whole industry falls and people looses jobs, which harms their life and the economy Half the economy depends on food sales, especially from fast food restaurants like McDonald's, Burger King, etc. and advertising is the only way to let the companies voices be heard to people who are willing to buy this. When we take away the advertisements of these companies, sales would go down significantly and it would result in a loss of the economy. But not only that, it impacts the peoples lives who depends on there job. When the industry falls, jobs would be lost and their whole income would disappear when we ban advertising. Today I want to focus on the fact that the companies have no fault, but instead the people have the wrongs to do this. We are also thinking about lives that could have a potential of becoming a havoc when their jobs are cut off, and the economies loss. Both of these have significant impact to the world. Please take in consideration of what I have said and be sure to vote for the opposition. Anyone willing to argue against my case can vote side proposition Thank you very much for my voice to be heard.
maybe is a powerfull word when there is no answer

PLEASE stop spamming the site up with these nonsensical debates. perhaps; possibly. This is the google definition [1] of maybe. When you don't know, it is possible that the thing may be possible, or perhaps happen. Maybe is not a 'powerfull[sic]' word when you don't know as it can be used in a number of non 'powerfull' cases. 1.) Google definition.
Abortion

As my opponent has not posted any arguments, I will give a few instances of why I am Pro-CHOICE.Women should always have the choice of what to do with their bodies. I do not condone abortion as birth control...But if the baby poses a harm (more than the usual risks of pregnancy) the women should have the CHOICE to terminate the pregnancy to protect her own life.If a woman is raped, and is impregnanted against her will, she should have the CHOICE to end that pregnancy.I will make rebuttals and furhter elaborations on these arguments when Pro has attempted to debate this topic.
The Following Arguments for the Existence of God are Valid - 1J

Note: the "1J" notation in the Topic title is simply for searching purposes. [Definition - Existence] http://dictionary.reference.com...... 1. the state or fact of existing; being. *NOTE* I am not debating whether or not a God exists in one's MIND, but rather in REALITY. [Definition - Valid] http://dictionary.reference.com...... 1. sound; just; well-founded 2. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. *NOTE* Stemming from the second definition, I don't intend for my opponent to create a syllogism. Simply put, my opponent needs to construct an argument of which I can't successfully defeat (of course, this is to the opinion of the voters). So in other words, it needs to be logically valid and sound. Let's try to avoid semantics, and get a good hearty debate going. Additionally, I require that my opponent argue for whatever deity they are proving with the intent of showing that it is PROBABLE/DEFINITE the deity exists (through their argument). Saying that something is possible does not necessarily mean it exists. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is how the debate will play out: Round 1: This is my Round 1 for clarifications and guidelines. For PRO, he/she will either state that his following arguments will affirm a specific god (i.e. Christian God, Muslim God, etc.) or a metaphysically supreme being. If my opponent chooses to affirm a metaphysical supreme being, then he/she need to define it's properties (otherwise there will be nothing to debate). Then, my opponent will LIST his/her ARGUMENTS with at least a brief EXPLANATION for both (I don't want just a line of titles). Try to not list too many, ranging from 1-3 is preferable. Round 2 - 4: I will refute his/her arguments and it will go back and forth as such. I hope we have a good debate!
Silent Lunches are the Worst things to Happen

I will begin with worse things that Schools have to offer. Uniforms public spankings detention long lunch lines cold lunches (temp) cold lunches in general Liberal agenda ROTC PT Now on to the fact that silent lunches are good. In military camp I had to eat Pi style. Since I can't find it, it's sitting strait up, left hand on your knee, using one hand to eat, eyes and head strait to the front, and no talking. This helped a lot since we were on a time limit it had us eating faster so we could start our daily PT at Wentsworth. I schools silent lunches get students out of the lunch line faster so I can go to the debate room and get started on my homework.
Silent Lunches are the Worst things to Happen

Last argument: A. In my school, you are not allowed to bring anything in the lunch room other than a bagged lunch. If you do, you get a detention B. I think that Silent Lunches are not the only punishment and silent lunches should be a last resort because it causes the most rebellion (assigned seats, lunches in classrooms, ect.) C. Last argument of this debate, most people would appreciate to talk in the lunchroom and have another time to talk with kids. Good luck everyone and vote for the best winner!