BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Television Series Affect Children Negatively

Television viewing absent of moderation is bad for the human body - along with everything else on this planet. However, with control over viewing time, it has been proven that television can positively impact a child.For example, many widely viewed television series have been proved to apply positive learning effects on children. A study conducted by Friedrich and Stein showed that children who watched Mister Rogers Neighborhood demonstrated increased measures of rule obedience, task persistence, and delay tolerance - all important commodities both for learning (1). Similar results were recognised through the children's cartoon Dragon Tales in a comprehensive study taken in 2001 (2).These are two prime example that exemplify the fact that on a general basis, television doesn't have a negative effect on children if moderated. (1) Friedrich, L.K., & Stein, A.H. (1973).(2)Rust, L. W. (2001). Summative evaluation of Dragon Tales: Final Report.
Television Series Affect Children Negatively

Children in all age groups are affected by the adverse effects of television. From toddlers to teens, television series have a detrimental effect; for example toddlers' brain development is impended by watching television, as it hampers the effective time spent by them in interacting with others and learning new things. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics condemns any TV time for children below 2 years. For teens, too much screen time reduces their outdoor time, socialization skills and reading skills. Teens are easily influenced by the atmosphere around them, some shows which depict violence and crimes in day-to-day life are so addictive for them that they tend to start practicing the same. Also, the commercials seen induce consumerism. According to J Evra, author of Television and Child Development, children are unable to critique the products advertised and feel compelled to buy them. They tend to coax their parents into buying it for them , unwillingly in most cases.
Television Series Affect Children Negatively

Television serves as one of the most important forms of mass communication in this era. The old and the young alike, watch various television shows and are directly or indirectly influenced by them. Especially, children are more prone to incorporate the themes or characters seen in TV into their own personal lives. While there are channels like National Geographic and Discovery that aim to educate, there are also others with not so noble motives. Children get so absorbed into these kind of shows, which incidentally are more appealing to them, that they tend to start imitating them. They want the circumstances around them to be as in the TV, they want that kind of an economic status and they are brazenly exposed to violence and other crimes. In extreme cases, when someone tried to reason with them, they are unable to comprehend and they get alienated from the society as such. As Woody Allen puts it, "Life doesn't imitate art, it imitates television."
SUPER COOL NO VOTING RIDDLE DEBATE NAc

"you can still have a collection of individual eggs u dumb."but you can't buy individual eggsyou're saying that you can buy individual beer cans in a store that only sells cases of 24your sophistry will not carry you out of herethe answer to your riddle is SeventhProfessor, given that he is being a dummy and is in conflict with reality “All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality. “Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason. Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man’s only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth. “The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: Whose reason? The answer is: Yours. No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it. It is only with your own knowledge that you can deal. It is only your own knowledge that you can claim to possess or ask others to consider. Your mind is your only judge of truth-and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal. Nothing but a man’s mind can perform that complex, delicate, crucial process of identification which is thinking. Nothing can direct the process but his own judgment. Nothing can direct his judgment but his moral integrity."
SUPER COOL NO VOTING RIDDLE DEBATE NAc

Individual = non-collectiveCarton = collectiveErgo, the restaraunt doesn't sell individual eggs, and, since you can only buy individual eggs in numbers of 1, 1 is the highest amount of individual eggs that you cannot buy. I did not post my riddle last round because my opponent's badly-thought-out riddle stunned me and petrified my mind. Here is one now: I am always hungry, I must be fed. The finger I lick will soon turn red.
SUPER COOL NO VOTING RIDDLE DEBATE NAc

The first rule is THERE ARE NO RULES EVERYONE GO CRAZY!!!! lol jk, first rule is this is a no voting debate. I shall present a riddle each round, to which bossy will reply with the answer and another riddle. The goal of this is to bring DDO back to its Golden Age of debate, starting with solving the riddles. Alright, here goes :) A grocery store sells eggs in cartons of 6, 9, and 20. What is the largest number of individual eggs you cannot order from this restaurant?
Cellphone is very useful nowadays..

You posted the argument that cell phones were very useful and you posted as pro, whereas I took the side of con and disagreed with you. I know my place in this debate; the question is, do you? It's hardly professional to attack the opponent; I really hope that you don't let this be your downfall. I will post a link that I used for my arguments, a citation if you will, and I hope that you will read it through and then make up your mind which side I'm on… Or rather, which side you're on. http://www.politicsdaily.com... I urge voters to vote ‘con' for this debate is rather one sided. 1) I have provided fair arguments that my adversary never acknowledged. 2) I have put in a reference, even though it's only one. 3) I have been watching my grammar, and even though no one is perfect it shouldn't be too difficult to see who took more time writing their debate. 4) I have not attacked my opponent, not even once whereas he is calling me a fool. (I think) I urge pro to try a little harder, don't worry we all have to start somewhere. If you'd like then I'd personally give you a couple of tips that I've picked up; all away from the public eye. Please consider my offer.
Cellphone is very useful nowadays..

I think this argument or debate rather, has no point. Because as what I have read also in your side that you are pro to the topic. ================ Both of us didn't understand what's the real point or who is the Pro and the Con. Or maybe,only you. ================ Try to read first what argument you have posted. You must against or Con but it seems that you are pro. FYI, I'm not the one who is wrong here.You are the one who committed mistake that your argument seems to connect in my side. ================ How pathetic! Let's end this debate! How fool.
Cellphone is very useful nowadays..

I find it rather difficult to see your point. You leave me with little to no room for debating seeing as you are pretty much agreeing with me. Let me ask you a couple of questions. 1) In what way are you relating phone usefulness to the procession? 2) When you say "focus first to the other more necessary things than the cellphones" you are agreeing with me, do you want to reconsider your own words? 3) Can you please rephrase your first paragraph? It is confusing and it contains poor grammar. I really have nothing to add to the argument. You have one last chance to convince the audience of your cause. If you fail to do so I will post my last argument and stress the true point of what we're discussing along with the closing word. Good luck.
Cellphone is very useful nowadays..

============== Well, to start my side, I was emphasizing about the financial crisis of America and the people who are using cellphones. My only concern about this debate is the people who were living in a certain country. As what I have said, we are really facing financial crisis. ============== Because we are facing the financial crisis, we must consider or concentrate first to the other things that could help our lives be productive. If we well focus first to the cellphones, because I know that 9 out of 10 of the population in America do have a cellphone, the other business that is more important than the cellphone will be rejected or neglected just for that small thing. ============== As what my opponent said that cellphones are an addiction. Yes, cellphones are an addiction and once you will become addict of a cellphone, you will be focusing of it all the time that you may forget the other things that is more necessary to be concentrated. ============== In short, my point is, focus first to the other more necessary things than the cellphones because we are facing financial crisis.
Cellphone is very useful nowadays..

I chose this subject especially because it will prove more of a challenge. That being said I hope for this to be a fun and educational debate. ====================== When you say "our country" you are really referring to the United States aren't you? For the sake of the debate I will assume that you are. If not then you may correct me in further posts. Now when you mention the financial crisis I will also assume that your debate will revolve around the importance of phones during a crisis in America. Since you are being vague I can only base my arguments on assumptions. ====================== The usefulness of a regular cell phone is about as equivalent to the internet which I consider to be a healthier alternative, seeing as how you can't really take the computer with you while you are traveling. I believe that no citation is needed for this claim. Cell phones are an addiction, but they are always looked past and people don't consider then to be too dangerous. With my future arguments I will stress on this fact with examples and references. I will keep this very brief as to let you make it clearer what we are ‘actually' debating about.
The Empire was Better than the Rebellion

Yes, the rebels had the upper hand with the upper terrain and the rebellion easily could have done many things that could have ended the war. In fact you made it seem that the rebellion was better and made my statement just seem to say that the empire was cooler, but let us look past all that. First off, many of the imperial navy officers were dumb and not very strategic at all, but they were just men who wanted to look cool and all. Second off, the storm troopers were just men who were trained poorly but were at least able to kill rebels. The rebels were very victorious in the movies as you said above and were able to use some mistakes that the empire had, but if you look past all that and dig deeper, you will find that the Empire was very, very victorious. They won the battle of Hoth and killed many men, they trapped and almost killed Luke, Han, and Leia so many times(especially in the comics), and were almost able to make a comeback even after they lost their second death star. So yes, the Empire did have some faults, but if look all past that, you will find that the Empire was not a force to mess with. Admiral Ozzel was a traitor. He did not follow commands as he should have which did lead him to die. Thankfully, he was replaced with better trained and a more reliable admiral. Finally, we have had some speculations, from the new Rogue One trailers, that Jyn Erso's father may have had to do with the exhaust port. For all we know, he could have purposely built the exhaust port big enough for a missile to go through and blow up the death star. He could have been helping the rebels. Of course, this is not confirmed, but it may be true. I am excited to see what my opponent has to say! Good luck. :)
The Empire was Better than the Rebellion

Good luck to my opponent! First off, the empire had way more access to good weapons and had two death stars. The only reason that were blown up was because of the force. Most likely the empire would have one if Luke had not gotten involved. Plus, the Empire had a bunch of super smart and powerful people including Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, Grand Admiral Thrawn, Grand Moff Tarkin, etc. Emperor Palpatine would have killed Luke if Vader did not turn to the light side and disobey the emperor. Second off, the Stormtroopers were better trained than the rebels. Yes, in the movies the stormtroopers had terrible aim, but they still killed a lot of rebels. There were so many troopers that they could destroy entire cities. Finally, the empire persuaded many colonies to join them and were able to defeat the wookies so they could build the death star for them. The wookies are no easy opponent to defeat so this is a great accomplishment. Thanks for reading and good luck again to my partner!
Religion of Barack Obama being [or not being] Islamic doesnt matter!

The religious viewpoints of Senator Obama matter. The religious viewpoints of any leader matter. The true variable is whether or not the leader actually manifests their beliefs in their behavior. That being said, Senator Obama is probably not a Muslin. He's a Methodist, for better or worse, and attends the Trinity Methodist Church. http://www.tucc.org... The Senator's Church has also raised some issues about his faith, as it is an all black church that stands for "restoration" among many other things. The religion of a person does matter. Morality and ethics are often shaped by a persons religious views in some way or another, and there are many religious beliefs which might not be the most beneficial for a leader to have. Forinstance, if Senator Obama believed that the Messiah was soon to return, true believers raptured, and the world to end just a little while later, The Senator might not be the best leader for creating policies to plan for the future. Now the Christian faith advises certain behaviors. Among them include not bearing false witness, not stealing, and not coveting thy neighbors goods. Sometimes a leader must misrepresent the truth, whether politically based or something more serious, there are times when even a good leader will bear false witness. Theft is often times an important tool of state craft, and so is killing people. The genocide of the American natives and the seizure of their "ancestral lands" were very important things to get done. Otherwise the United States wouldn't be much of a very good country if the leaders were concerning themselves with being Christian. So, not only does a persons religious views matter, but the level of devotion with which they carry them out does. I would hate to have a leader that refuses to consider a policy that might bring about good things for their people or their government on account of some religious dogma. The media has been doing a poor job of covering why one's religious views matter. Religious beliefs have been behind the justification for most of the brutal and terrible acts committed by humans on other humans. While today we're not using religion as an excuse to commit genocide in North America, the United States is still full of people and politicians that want to use, and do use religion to justify not extending full legal rights to other Americans.
More belligerent fire alarms should be mandated in all workplaces with more than 10 employees.

No, we were not to evacuate until the "alarm" reached our floor. This would occur if the fire was maybe a floor or two below us, or if it the fire system showed that the fire was spreading quickly. One of the primary reasons for this, was because there were only so many stairwells in the building, and if everyone tried to evacuate at the same time (over 1,000 people), then the stairwells would get clogged and bad, this would risk trapping people on floors where they were actually in danger. The idea is to evacuate those in the most danger first (and in a haste manner) then to evacuate others. Or, if the fire is small and quickly contained, those that were in no danger at all don't need to be evacuated. All in all, an organized and planned evacuation is far superior then one that insults you. Thank you,
More belligerent fire alarms should be mandated in all workplaces with more than 10 employees.

Are you kidding? They wouldn't let you evacuate the building until the fire actually spread to your floor? How did that work then? "Excuse us for disturbing you, Mr Big Boss Man, sir. A fire has broken out on the floor below us and we can see that it is quite localised at the moment. If we evacuate now we have a chance of escaping with our lives. " "What? You miserable bunch of indolent, work-shy skivers - you'll evacuate when the fire spreads to this floor and not a moment sooner. Now stop slacking and get back to work. " What a cruel, ruthless slave-driver of a boss you had - no wonder you quit! I don't know how he was allowed to get away with it. Normally fire regulations are governed by law and are strictly enforced – certainly where I work, if a fire is detected anywhere in the building the entire premises are evacuated immediately and the fire alarm system automatically alerts the fire brigade – but this is practiced universally as it is a statutory obligation that applies to all but the smallest companies. [1] And it makes sense: where people's lives are concerned, it is better to err on the side of caution and have everybody evacuated as quickly as possible rather than risk death or injury in order to maintain productivity levels, and more belligerent fire alarms would facilitate this process. Therefore, in the interest of saving lives I urge you to vote Pro in support of the resolution. Thank you. [1] . http://www.healthandsafety.co.uk...
More belligerent fire alarms should be mandated in all workplaces with more than 10 employees.

While it is true that many people will wait when they hear a fire alarm and do other things, my opponent makes no reasonable argument that if the fire alarms are belligerent that they will speed people up. When I worked in a 9 story office building (on the 9th floor, of course), fire alarms would only go off on the floor that was actually on fire, not through the entire building. And it was company policy, as well as building policy, that you should not evacuate unless the alarms on your floor are going off. This is to prevent a clog up in the stairwells and so that people who are actually on a safe floor are not running down towards dangerous floors. However, since the stairwells ran all the way to the top, any alarm on other floors could be heard on the 9th (though it was quiet enough that you could tell that it was not on our floor). Had the alarms been belligerent, we would have just been subject to an insulting alarm, rather then just a mildly annoying one.
More belligerent fire alarms should be mandated in all workplaces with more than 10 employees.

Most modern fire alarms combine a siren with a recorded message which usually goes something like this: "A fire has been reported in the building. Please leave by the nearest exit as soon as possible" and this message is repeated ad-infinitum until the alarm is either deactivated or it melts in the fire. However, some people, unless they can actually smell smoke or see flames, will delay evacuating the building in order to finish a phone call or e-mail, or to collect their personal belongings or to put some make-up on or tidy their hair. That's why the fire alarm should be more belligerent and, as well as the siren, broadcast the following message: "A fire has been reported in the building. Please leave by the nearest exit as soon as possible." Repeat 10 times, then: "Did you not here that? I mean it's not like I haven't said it enough times, is it? So what are you still doing here? Do you want to fry? Well, do you? In that case I suggest you get a fvcking wiggle on. Come on, move it!" This will prompt tardy or excessively nonchalant evacuees to leave the building without further delay, thus saving precious lives. With this in mind I urge you to vote Pro in favour of the resolution. Thank you.
If a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it, it does not make a sound.

1. I introduced a conditional that my opponent agreed with since the resolution talks about "nobody there to hear it" that means there is nobody there that can hear it. That allows me to say that people with hearing impairment are allowed to be "there". So, as long as they are "there" then the sound exists as "they have a brain" and regardless, even if it doesn't "exist to them" the resolution refers to a general scope. Also, you say this is irrelevant however I pointed out the resolution is talking about people that can hear. 2. My opponent goes on to explain the process of hearing, however my point still stands that this person could be "there" and my opponent even goes on to allow this possibility. I'll explain more later about "there" in my next point. 3. My opponent completely misunderstood my position. I was simply using the words my opponent used to my benefit my case to ultimately make a statement that negates the resolution: Since people with hearing impairment are allowed to be "there" based on the fact that they break my conditional [and my opponent agrees with my conditional] and because my opponent said directly from R2 "Without a brain, sound does not exist" and since people with hearing impairment have a brain, then the opposite of my opponent's statement is "With a brain, sound does exist" thus I've negated the resolution because people with hearing impairment, regardless if they hear the sound, allow the sound to exist. Thanks for the debate Pro.