BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That we should not target children in advertisements

Continuing, I will begin with rebuttal: -'exposing children to advertisement because it is impossible to prevent' As the Con has pointed out, by exposing children to advertising we are able to 'educate' them and inherently strengthen them. However, we do not believe this is the case. Let us move on to a common case prevalent in state schools all around the world: Bullying. It is undeniable that bullying has negative consequences. The Con has conveniently agreed with me that advertising has negative consequences for children. Do we tell children 'Cool, let's let you suffer from bullying and we'll tell you methods to cope at the same time. So let us let those bullies rough you up a bit while, at the same time, we will tell you to run away and tell a teacher.' No. We do not. It is abhorrent and there is no reason why we should do this. We do not let the mental and physical turmoil hit the child and then step in. Simply because advertising cannot be stopped does not mean that we should not attempt to stop it. Again, we can relate to the issue of bullying. Bullying will never stop because it's a prominent part of the culture and lifestyles of many people. However, we can deter it and attempt to cut it off from the root. Through deterrence in the beginning, the amount of reported bullying curbs. -we will become 'immune' to it No we will not. Let us create a hypothetical scenario, a study of 100 children being subjected to constant disruption while forcing them to do homework. Sure, 70 may well cope with it and learn to 'deal' with it. However, in this case, Con conveniently forgot about the other 30. So, what happens with them? They break down. Their mental processes are subsequently shredded and they simply cannot cope despite the help that you try to offer. Are we going to neglect the smaller minority simply because the larger majority can benefit? Are we going to adopt the utilitarianism approach to advertising, despite the fact that it has been proven problematic on so many counts in the past? There is absolutely no reason why we should allow this to continue. Moving onto my substantive, My next main point: The economic implications of such a procedure. Fast food joints target these children, influencing them to gorge on different kinds of fast food. Eventually, these children can become overweight or even obese. Not only is this a burden on themselves, it is a burden to the state. This leads to an increased risk of health problems, and when they suffer from these health problems, most states have to intervene, leading to increasing healthcare costs. We do not believe that the state has to deal with these issues simply because children are exposed to horrible influences from an early age. We believe that the state should step in and actively attempt to stop the targeting of children from an early age because that is in the interests of both the children and the state.
That we should not target children in advertisements

Thank you. First of all, we have agreement. Advertising may lead to consumerism, which is bad. There's no debate on this point. However, my argument that we should let children to get exposed to advertising, is for one thing; education and prevention. The best solution is (obviously is) to avoid advertisement at any cost. However, this is impossible. The reason is because due to modernization and globalization, we're constantly exposed to entertainment, including advertisement. My argument is: With the help of parents (and government), we should expose children to advertisement, so they're immune to the bad thing. Here's what I'm trying to say. An example will help: We're born as weak baby right? Since we're baby, we're given immunization. Those liquid that's injected to our body contains virus. The target of immunization is so our immune will grow up and defeat the virus. After this process of immunization, our body is immune to this disease. That's why nobody got Polio on later age like back in the 40s , due to this immunization. The same logic applies to advertising. With advertising exposed to our kid, bad things will be exposed to our kid, but with morale lesson given to our kids by our parents about bad effect of advertising, our kid is immune to the bad things such as consumerism. I'm not going to explain and debate of which parenting method is the best, since it's out of scope. Advertising is unavoidable, but once in our life, we must face bad things, so we learn from it and then avoid it and "immune" to it. You cannot learn which is bad and which is good, if we don't know which one is. How a kid will tell something is bad if they're not exposed to it. Parents are important in this education process. I'd like to restate this point. I like to make "pressure point" that exposed doesn't have to mean they have to do it. So if I say someone is exposed with drugs, it doesn't mean that guy uses drugs. It's just he know what is drugs.
That we should not target children in advertisements

Alright, so let's begin! I'll start off with my substantive due to no arguments being present previously. We define children as any human under the age of 12 years, or have not matured enough to be considered an older teenager. Targeting is defined as explicitly programming the contents of advertisements with the primary intended purpose of persuading children. Firstly, just the theme of ethics. Targeting TV advertisements to children is unethical. We do not feel that children can distinguish between programs and cannot judge how unethical an advertisement or how misleading an advertisement can be. Children are far less likely to resist sales pitches, so in this sense we are taking advantage of these children. We are exploiting the weakness that most children possess and so we do not feel that it is justified. Additionally, advertising specifically to children has many potential implications. Children are unlikely to possess significant amounts of money, they are unlikely to possess items of consequence, so we believe that when children are so severely targeted by advertisements and subsequently influenced, then their parents are likely to be the ones who are harassed constantly, pestered constantly in order to receive what they want. This leads to parents having to handle the financial burden that their children are heaping onto them. As children mature, so does their ability to make more informed decisions, and this is why it is justified to protect children from unhealthy advertising until they have matured.
Moral Relativism is True

My opponent will take up the burden of proof and support the moral relativism that he/she believes in; which he/she must define. I will then critically examine his/her claims. I would like for my opponent to wait until round two to start. I would like to define a couple of terms: 1. Morality: the action(s) or intention(s) that one "ought" to do or have or that one "ought" not to do or have. 2. Objective morality (To prevent a strawman): the action(s) or intention(s) that one "ought" to do or have or that one "ought" not to do or have. This self-evident truth holds that moral rule is true regardless of whether anyone believes it. It can't be created by personal taste or conviction; nor does it vanish when an individual or society rejects it. 3. I believe that morality has a hierarchical quality to it. That is to say, that some moral actions "trump" other moral actions. (To prevent a strawman. ) Thanks!
The United States should continue accepting Syrian refugees

I fear that my argument has been misrepresented by my opponent. Would the safe zones 100% guarantee the safety of the Syrian refugees? Absolutely not however the risk would be greatly mitigated by the NATO or UN military force that would secure the area. But in the end, here is my point: the chief concern of the United States government should be the safety of the American people. This means eliminating risks as they present themselves. Could be still be attacked from other avenues? Once again, of course we can. However, this is a debate solely concerning the refugee threat, not all of the other threats that Islamic Terrorism presents us. There are many roads we could take to help guarantee our safety however today we are only discussing a single one. This is also not a debate of whether or not the President "could" bring the refugees into the nation. That has been long established. The debate is over whether we "should" bring the refugees in. Overall, there is a lot of emotion involved in this issue. We should not blind ourselves to the facts just so we can have a good feeling at the end of the day. The admittance of refugees presents an unarguable threat to the citizens of the United States that stems from a flawed and inherently ineffectual vetting process. It would be dangerous to everyone that we love to let them in. We have many steps to take to ensure our safety from threats abroad. Keeping these people out is a good place to start.
The United States should continue accepting Syrian refugees

The con speaker brought up the idea of putting the refugees in safe zones in Syria rather than sending them to the U.S. But who says that these refugees will be any safer there than they would here in the U.S.? The speaker claimed that denying refugees doesn't have to be as cruel as I'm making it to be, but the same could be said about his idea of safe zones in the sense that he is exaggerating the safeness of them. How would we be able to ensure that they are safe or that no ISIS members would attempt to sneak in there? If what he claims is true, and there is no satisfactory vetting system, how would these refugees be any more safe than they would in the U.S.? This idea wouldn't even ensure the safety of our own people, as there are many other ways for an ISIS member to get in the country, according to my opponent. But, going back to the well being of the Syrian refugees, they are, in fact, in more danger in the "safe zones" than they would be in the U.S. How would any members of ISIS not be able to access the safe zones easier than they could access the U.S. when the safe zones are in the same country?! And finally, why would these safe zones placed in Syria keep these refugees safe when the speaker himself said that Syria is a "literal intelligence hell hole"? As you can see, there are numerous problems with setting up a safe zone in the same country as the terrorist group. But, will the American people be safe from ISIS if we stop letting in refugees? As far as I'm concerned, the complete safety of the American people will never be ensured as long as ISIS still remains at large. Finally, I'd like to bring up my final point today, which I believe is the most important point I have. We can sit here debating whether we think we should let in Syrian refugees in the U.S. or not all day, but in the end, it's not up to anybody except for the federal government. Why is that so? According to America's most well known and important document, the Constitution, in matters such as this, it is the federal government's decision. Let me be more specific. According to the supremacy clause in the Constitution, "federal laws trump state laws, except for matters constitutionally left to the states." However there are no matters in the constitution left to the states concerning immigration. So what's the federal law that states must comply with? According to the Refugee Act of 1980, the President has the power to admit refugees into the U.S. especially if an "unforeseen emergency refugee situation" exists, which one currently does. Furthermore, President Obama has made it very clear to accept all Syrian refugees into the United States. Links: http://thinkprogress/justice/2015/11/16/3722628/no-state-governors-can-refuse-to-accept-syrian-refugees/ http://immigration.findlaw.com...
The United States should continue accepting Syrian refugees

There is no need for you to explain the vetting process because that is what I am going to do. Currently there is no way to ensure that we would be safe if there were terrorists in the lot of refugees. It would be impossible to predict who is and who isn't a terrorist. This has been reiterated by plenty, including FBI director James Comey, who has said that "we can only query against that which we have collected and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them." Being that Syria is a literal intelligence hell hole, it would be impossible to vet these people. So what would the vetting process come down to if we have no real information on the people we are trying to bring into our country? It would come down to a series of weak testing. As Time magazine describes in the article I'll link at the end, the refugees would be interviewed and their information will be run through criminal databases. But if they never made a "ripple in the pond in Syria," there will be no information to verify that they are genuine asylum seekers and not terrorists. For these reasons, a satisfactory vetting process is not possible. The process is inherently flawed from the beginning. Because of this, terrorists would be able to come into our country through the refugee process. I must admit that the chances of a terrorist coming into our nation through this method is slim for the reason that there are many methods that would be simply easier for them. However, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take measures to close this hole. When our friends and families are at risk, there are few methods that are inappropriate that ensure their safety. Also, denying the refugees entry into our nation does not have to be a cruel act as you are making it out to be. There are measure that we can take that can guarantee both their humanity and our security. For example, the United States can set up a safe zone in Syria. Doing this, we would be able to more efficiently care for a greater number of refugees. We could ensure that they are being taken care of in a safe environment, free from the government bombings and ISIS genocide. At the same time, our government can do their duty and ensure the safety and security of each and every one of its citizens, its paramount duty. Thank you. Here are my sources: Http://www.youtube.com....... "Jim Comey Testifies on Syrian Refugees." YouTube. YouTube, 21 Oct. 2015. Web. 03 Apr. 2016 Link to make it easier: https://www.youtube.com...... Altman, Alex. "This Is How the Syrian Refugee Screening Process Works." Time. Time, 17 Nov. 2015. Web. 03 Apr. 2016 Link to make it easier: http://time.com......
The United States should continue accepting Syrian refugees

As mentioned by the con speaker, there is a clear security threat posed by the Syrian refugees and this is simply false. These refugees are coming to America to escape ISIS. These refugees are innocent people and to say that any of them are a threat to the U.S. absolutely disgusts me. (When I say this, I'd like to make it clear that I am in no way insulting my opponent or attacking him in any way). Out of the thousands of Syrian refugees the U.S. has accepted so far, there has not been a single attack in the U.S. done by any of them. Then there is the concern of the Paris attack. Yes, there are a lot of concerns about the safety of the American citizens after there was a problem with security in Paris, but the security in Paris is much different than that of the U.S. In Europe, those entering are fingerprinted and then are allowed to go to the mainland even if they don't have their identification documents, and they are then transferred through European countries to get to countries that will accept them. While doing so, these refugees do not even need a passport to go through these countries. Not only is there a difference in security, but compared to other groups, the Syrians are the most vetted group going to the U.S. Let me give you an idea of how hard it would be for a member of ISIS to get into the U.S. by going with the rest of the Syrian refugees. 1. A member of ISIS would have to go to a refugee camp with four million other Syrian refugees in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, or Turkey 2. Out of those 4 million people, this ISIS member would have to be one of only 23,000 other refugees to be even considered to be flown to the U.S. 3. This member would then have to be part of only 10,000 people that will be admitted into the U.S. within next year of those 23,000 4. Of those 10,000 people, the U.S. State Department has concluded that only 2% of them are considered "military aged males", with the rest being women, children, elderly, and the sick. Therefore, the chances of any of the Syrian refugees being a member of ISIS is extremely low. I'd also like to remind everyone that these people are not chosen randomly, as they are put through an extensive amount of background checks (which I can go into more depth in the next round.)
The United States should continue accepting Syrian refugees

Because I just debated this same topic in a longer form, I'll pick this one up. To deny that there isn't a security threat posed by the Syrian refugee influx is ludicrous. There is no real way to vet every single one of the refugees. This leaves a clear loophole for terrorists to take and land in our back yards, ready to kill our friends and families. There are other solutions for the refugee issue that do not put our necks in the guillotine. I look forward to a lively debate.
The United States should continue accepting Syrian refugees

The United States has basic principles in its foundation, and by turning our backs on these Syrian refugees we are going against what America stands for: equal opportunities for everyone, even if they come from a different country. Now, I'm going to cut this short to hear my opponents basic views on this issue and I will get to most of my points in the next round. I would also like to ask that my opponent knows a lot about the issue, as I would like this to be a fair and lively debate.
The Office (US) is funnier than _______

Humor is subjective to a certain point, as different people find different things funny. For example if I laugh at something that someone else doesn't than I may have a different taste. However there are certain guidelines to determine what is funny. How else would we determine what is comedy and what isn't. SAW clearly isn't funny but that doesn't mean that someone won't laugh. Some guidelines for comedy may be found here: "The incongruity theory states that humor is perceived at the moment of realization of incongruity between a concept involved in a certain situation and the real objects thought to be in some relation to the concept. " . https://en.m.wikipedia.org... The incongruity theory says that funniness is caused by the realization that what you thought is true for a situation is actually different from what is true in the situation. The office best exemplifies this because of the ridiculous nature of it's characters and the seemingly normal situations where you'd expect combined with wacky occurrences and dialogue. Seinfeld has some moments like these, but their lessened with outdated laugh tacks and stale situations. As I have proved the office is funnier in almost every respect. My opponent claimed that since more people thought that Seinfeld was funny, it is therefore more humorous. This is not true. First of all my opponent uses only one poll to prove his point ( and he can't introduce new polls late in the round because I can no longer debate them. The poll that he uses is actually not reliable because of a couple of reasons: The percentage that Seinfeld won with is within the margin of error (only one by 1%) and because THE OFFICE wasn't in the poll. How were fans of the office supposed to win if their choices were limited to old white people shows. I would have voted for the office had those been my only choices too (cheers, friends, etc. ) So just to recap, we can't be sure if Seinfeld won and the office wasn't even on the poll. So that poll is now irrelevant and P2 of their argument collapses, bringing down p3. So to lay it out to the voters: Humor is subjective to a point, but Seinfeld falls to The office in the non subjective parts as well as the subjective parts Since my opponent's poll does not cover the data that we are discussing, it is deemed irrelevant No record exists in this debate that proves a majority consensus thinks one show is funnier than another. I have proved that the office is funnier, my opponent has relinquished my arguments.
Political Correctness Prevents us From Having an Honest Conversation about Race and Racism

As my opposition has failed to post a response to my last debate, I will strengthen and re-iterate earlier points and expose some flaws in the oppositional argument. So, the benefits of political correctness work in two ways. These benefits correspond to the two ways in which political correctness changes the behaviour of national figures. The first of these is in language. Political correctness filters out hurtful or offensive language that is likely to hinder open discussion and positive change. It does this by requiring whoever is speaking in question to use appropriate vocabulary. Without this respect people become offended and, when some one feels personally attacked, violent rather than diplomatic solutions are likely to follow. The second is in not allowing stereotyping. This means connecting gender, race, ethnicity or such to a certain act and hence defining someone by a certain physical trait or religion. It instead encourages beliefs and acts to be criticised rather than people which keeps the criticism impersonal causing a greater chance of positive change. So, for example, this would mean (and this is by no way my own opinion) that one would say 'the belief in the bible is stupid', rather than 'Christians are stupid'. Now, lets address the arguments against: This is that political correctness is causing a fear culture that means no one feels comfortable to express their opinions. This is entirely untrue for two reasons. Firstly, it's not a difficult or complex idea, it only involves a little understanding and respect, it is a very simple concept. Secondly, no one is expected to uphold these principles in their personal lives, it is a system designed to put pressure on public figures. Another argument is that it diverts people's anger to whether someone has used the correct word rather than the bigger issues being discussed. This is a common lie as it misses the point. Being politically correct fundamentally allows for the discussion of larger issues as it firstly shows respect. It refuses to give fuel to angry,senseless critics because it shows complete courtesy to everyone. Political correctness is a force for good. It is the concrete needed to build national debate, or the platform essential for mounting societal change. It' s time to recognise what a positive impact it has, and will continue to have. I hope my opposition replies, I look forward to his response.
Political Correctness Prevents us From Having an Honest Conversation about Race and Racism

With discussion about race/racism at an all time high in America, now is a better time than ever to have an open and honest conversation. What is racism? Why do we still have it and how can we prevent it for the future of a healthy society? These are important questions which need to be answered, but unfortunately, they never will. My argument is that the force of political correctness is so strong within America today, that an honest conversation is all but impossible. I will argue that we are further away today than ever before in our history about coming to any sort of societal agreement about these contentious issues. I will further explain what exactly political correctness has done and how we can move forward. I look forward to a civilized debate.