BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Games are too broad of a subject to be criticized as a whole.

Now this being my first argument/debate (I am also 13 so I am pretty inexperienced a debating but I will do my best.) I just want to point out that I picked a very broad subject and you will see the actual point of the debate I wish the best of luck to my opponent and hope that not only I but we both can learn something from each other. lets begin! - ok so video games/games in general are to broad of a subject to be criticized as a whole (like books), but there are genres of gaming(me being a gamer myself am not supporting this because of what I normally do but what I have heard throughout DDO)like FPS(first person shooter) RPG(roleplaying games) MMO(MASSIVELY multiplayer online games) puzzle, strategy, team based, class based, single player, survival and many more(as my point being its to broad of a subject). I will bring up a few popular games among gamers -minecraft(survival) -wii games such as wii sports,wii play and mario series (family) -hearthstone (online card and strategy game) -starcraft (brood war) and starcraft 2 (RTS) -WOW(world of warcraft) (RPG) -diablo 3 (RPG-I believe I've never played it myself) -my singing monsters (casual) -clash of clans (strategy) -destiny (mix of shooter and RPG :Again never played myself) -halo(FPS) -call of duty(FPS) -battlefield(FPS) -various mobile games and so on many of you gamers will recognize famous blizzard entertainment games listed up above lets start with the subject at hand games help us advance in technology, mental stability, social standings, healthy competitive relationships, social sharing and open discussions.(based on my experience I have made many online friends and enjoyable moments online.) games also help in social sharing and open discussions letting someone converse with a person a half a world away and learn and get new ideas, and yes there is cyber bullying but kids and not just kids older people too, need to learn to brush it off (now not all "kids" can brush it off but parents need to take responsibility for their children):if its to much to handle you need to get off and hand the controller to someone who is more mature than you and go play a mario game. also if its nothing that you can learn from the argument and your feelings are being hurt than just ignore it or report it you have the right to free speech and so do they(this actually depends on were you are but for now I assume that most games are in countries with free speech) and so they can scream words at you but if you want just brush it off. They can"t hurt you they are cowards behind a screen and they are probably states if not countries away. also I'm being vary unclear please excuse me for that. Lots of parents and people criticize gaming and bash it with no clear evidence research or good reason. that is what my debate is about. that just bout raps up my first argument.
stupidity=doubting myself

I negate the resolution resolved, stupidty=doubting myself C1: Definitions Subpoint A: Definition of stupidity Merriam Webster defines this as: "a stupid idea or act" Thus, stupidy cannot mean doubting myself, as explained Subpoint B: Definition of Doubting Merriam Webster defines this as, "to lack confidence in" These two definitions do not match, so it is incorrect and it is why you should vote for the Con side. My opponent is trying to say that a stupid idea is equal to lacking in confidence. This is obviously incorrect because sometimes you cannot say that people doubt stupid ideas, as explained: C2: People do not doubt stupid ideas Berkun, 2015 "The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they"re wrong. This is bad. Worse, if they got away with it when they were young (say, because they were smarter than their parents, their friends, and their parent"s friends) they"ve probably built an ego around being right, and will therefore defend their perfect record of invented righteousness to the death. Smart people often fall into the trap of preferring to be right even if it"s based in delusion, or results in them, or their loved ones, becoming miserable." People are comfortable of defending stupidity, and even though they will defend stupid actions, it does not mean they are doubting their selves; in fact they are confident to defend them. Thus, stupidity does not mean people are doubting themselves. SO with these reasons and the following to come, I urge a ballot in the Con side. Thank you. http://scottberkun.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
stupidity=doubting myself

Let's look at my opponent's arguments. "seeing all, i only run into a fence on purpose" This rebuttal has NOTHING to do with this resolution due to the fact that it is stupidity, but however, it has nothing to do with doubting oneself. My opponent is trying to say that, just because you run into a fence on purpose, that someone doubted his/her self? Of course not. One person would have to be confident if he/she was going to do a certain action, thus not doubting his/her self due to the fact one person can't doubt a stupid actions. Actions occur when someone wants to do it, thus it is not doubting oneself, it is just being confident in oneself. Thus, my opponents 1st argument is void and useless. Next rebuttal "the definitions are one and the same" Ok. Since I have reliably sourced my definitions, and my opponents haven't, my definitions still stand today, which I will repost: Subpoint A: Definition of stupidity Merriam Webster defines this as: "a stupid idea or act" Thus, stupidity cannot mean doubting myself, as explained Subpoint B: Definition of Doubting Merriam Webster defines this as, "to lack confidence in" and thus stupidity does not equal to doubting myself because a stupid idea or act does not equal to lacking confidence Next point "maybe it's stupid to drink alcohol in the first place" Again, not relevant. Just because someone is stupid to drink alcohol in the first place, does it mean the person is doubting his/herself? Of course not.One person would have to be confident if he/she was going to do a certain action, thus not doubting his/her self due to the fact one person can't doubt a stupid actions. Actions occur when someone wants to do it, thus it is not doubting oneself, it is just being confident in oneself. Thus, my opponents 1st argument is void and useless. My opponents haven't hit my second contention, so flow that on to the negative. Today, their rebuttals and contentions have been refuted, thus they have no ground. However, they have never hit a single contention at all of mine, thus my case stands, thus I win. I urge a ballot in the Con side in today's debate. `TheResistance
Political correctness will run the US into the ground.

1. What makes the Obama admin. "stronger" than the Bush admin.? 2. What has Obama brought to the table that he promised during the election? 3. How is the Bush admin. "weak"? Political Correctness- when politicians try to use "respectful" terms and actions when talking about a "minority". It gets to the point where It is soooo ridiculous, It inhibits the gov. from doing anything.
Political correctness will run the US into the ground.

1. He "focuses on Hope and Change". WHAT HOPE AND CHANGE????? PLEASE- EXPLAIN!!!! 2. What issues has he stuck to since the campaign? 3. WE ARE NOT IN A CRISIS!!!!! WE ARE IN A WAR!!!!! He may say he wants to end it but he is trying to persuade the British to put more troops into AFGHANISTAN. Please- If you are going to say something like that, BACK IT UP!!!!! 4. Name 3 Obama policies that he has had SINCE THE CAMPAIGN---- NOT "HOPE AND CHANGE"!!!!
We should Grant Rights on Cetaceans.

I believe I have proven the despicable nature of these water dwelling fiends, and while I complement my opponent on her prose with the English Language, I strongly disagree with her world view of putting sea cows on par with human beings. Never forget the Tale of Moby Dick, and the brave Fisherman who who dreamt, who dared, to stand up, and whisper-"no". Stand with me, let us stand together in abolishing the existing rights of the monsters that inhabit our sea Stand with me in a world without rights for Cetaceans. I beg, to Oppose
We should Grant Rights on Cetaceans.

I will be rebutting everything that has been said and then re-affirming and developing my points, which pretty much all still stand.Cetaceans still don't deserve rightsBasically pro has quoted a bunch of sources saying that these water-dwelling beasts can be taught a few tricks when housed in zoos and are a bit smarter than the average unthinking beast. Whales are not similair to humans at all. They are whales, they weigh thousands of pounds, do not have concious thought, and do not develop thinking like we do. If whales are even somewhat similair to us, then apes are our brothers, not a far off relative. "When they are separated from their families, friends, or human companions, cows grieve over the loss. Researchers report that cows become visibly distressed after even a brief separation from a loved one. Cows are especially dedicated to their young and the bond formed between a mother and her calf remains long after the baby has grown" http://www.gan.ca... All animals have some measure of intelligence, but they should not get rights. After reading the above article can pro tell me why cows shouldn't have rights as well? Should we shut down every slaughter house and starve millions of North Americains? There is no difference between whales/cows/elephants, they all have similair properties of intelligence as with hundereds of thousands of other animals, but there is no significant link to human likeness that would warrant them having rights. Things pro hasn't dealt with:1. Japenese lively hood depends on hunting whales and dolphins, not only is it part of their culture, but they have hunted them for hundreds of years. It is extremely ethno-centric and ignorant to take away their main source of food. There is no difference between whaling and what goes on in our slaughterhouses. 2. All the problems that pro has named-that is overfishing and cruelty, are done by people working outside the law. They are already criminals, and giving Cetaceans rights will not stop them from doing these illegal acts.3. Giving these water-dwelling plankton eatersrights would only deprive millions of people of their source of income and food.Second Contention: Ceteceans should have their existing rights taken away, not given more Whales and dolphins, though pretty to look at, actually harm the eco-systems they are in. They consume exorbitent amounts of plankton/fish, and one whale meal could sustain a large population of other predators for weeks. Whales/dolphins are top carnivores, nothing eats them so they just sit at the top of the food chain like fat greedy kings taking everything while giving nothing. That is another reason we should not give them rights. Dolphins are bleeding rapists. They have actually raped scuba-divers and other swimmers. http://www.sexwork.com... Whales have been destroying boats and eating people since we discovered how to build boats http://en.wikipedia.org...;
We should Grant Rights on Cetaceans.

Sorry for the delay. So I've extracted about two contentions from Pros speech; Ill deal with them, give one of my own, and also tell you why his/her "plan" does not work.Also, could you define what "Rights" are? Do you mean Human rights? Because in a sense they already have rights;they are prtoected where their numbers are low So basically pro said that Cetaceans are treated quite cruelly. Giving them rights will not change this. When they are "whaled" by cruel or non-orthodox/approved methods it is done outside the regulation of the law, what would need to be done is more policing of the international waters, which not only presents a question of who owns the waters and who would police them, but is also quite impossible. The ocean is a big place. Giving Ceteceans rights will not stop cruelty.Basically, Ceteceans are covertley killed and sold by Japenese Whalers under different disguises and excusesGiving them rights won't stop this, it will only impede existing reseachers. If people aren't allowed to take whales in to be researched, then we will not gain any further knowedge about these beasts. Researchers need to be able to tag and track them so we can know the existing population. Again the problem is with people working outside the law, so any labelment of rights will be ignored. My First and Only Contention: Whales don't deserve rights Whales are no different than any other animal that is hunted on this earth, and the only steps taken towards them is conserving their numbers for the species to be sustainable for future generations. Hunting/eating Ceteceans is as normal and culturally rooted to Japenese people as eating cows are to North Americans, giving ceteceans rights is extremely ignorant and ethno-centric. Japenese people have as much a right to slaughter them as we do to eat cows. As long as the numbers of Ceteacens are sustainable killing them is viable. I've also proven the problem of over fishing cannot be solved by granting them rights. I beg, to oppose-Vlad
We should Grant Rights on Cetaceans.

I believe that we should grant rights to cetaceans. What are Cetaceans? Cetaceans are whales & dolphins. Why should we grant rights to them? Whaling had begun hundreds of years ago by the Japanese and was soon found in many other countries. A whaling technique that is used is they chase a cetacean until they run out of breath from exhaustion. Then, they put bombs under/next to them. The bomb explodes. You die. Another way that is very common is that the fishermen catch you and butcher you ALIVE. That's right, they cut off their flippers and tails while the whale/dolphin is still living. Now there is a law on people like the Japanese that has limits the number of cetaceans killed per year. However, the Japanese gets around that by killing all their whales and taking them to "research". They say that they want to know what the whale eats and what they look in to the inside, etc. Days later, those whales are found in meat shops where they are sold for a profit. I hope you understand why we need to band Rights on Cetaceans. My plan: Every fisherman should be authorized. They should sign an agreement to say "Hey. I'm not going to kill anymore whales". There should be people who would monitor the coast every now and again. If the fisherman gets caught, they will pay a $3000 fine and/or go to jail. Bonus: You can have people hunt down those fishermen ALIVE and they can get $500 for finding one that has killed a cetacean. I'm looking forward to hear my opponent's response.
That we should pay people to donate blood

Thanks Yraelz for agreeing to debate this topic with me. My model in this debate is simple. People who give their blood to registered blood-banks in order to help save those in need ought to be given some kind of recompense, notwithstanding reasonable restrictions that for the most part already exist in blood-banks (ie you have to be a certain age, you can't give blood too often, you can't have deadly blood-diseases etc). This incentive would be funded via the blood-bank themselves, who are typically funded by some combination of government or user-pays. Blood types in high demand could command greater income. Now that you know where I stand in the debate and what we're arguing over, I can't wait to get started. First round for acceptance. 72 hours per round. 8000 chars. 1 week voting. Good luck!
The Pledge of Allegiance is disrespectful!

Quoted by my opponent last round "Sure students don't have to say it if they don't want to" under the statement about "Under God", so what is the issue? My opponent said you don't have to say it, in which if you don't; that is your choice, so in reality there is no disrespect about the PoA if its your decision to say "Under God". My opponent even agrees with me about respecting the country, with the quote: "I understand, however, that saying the Pledge is in respect for your country". So how is the Pledge disrespecting our country even though the flag is a symbol for those who have fallen for our country? The Pledge of Alleigiance is used as an "anthem" for showing our respect to our country. For children believing what their parents believe, whats the issue with that? Its their decision, and you really cannot get involved on what they believe. Once more, even if you don't believe the portion about "Under God", you can avoid saying that and still show respect to the country.
The Pledge of Allegiance is disrespectful!

It doesn't matter how easy it is to say "Under God." It is. It shouldn't matter that the US was founded on the Christian belief; we are way past that now. I understand, however, that saying the Pledge is in respect for your country. The verses of the original pledge had no "under god" in it. We should be using that one. And, as you can understand, young kids don't believe independently. They believe whatever their parents believe. The founding fathers knew America would be a huge breadbasket, with many different religions and races, so it really wasn't built on Christianity. It was built in a way that let people believe what they wanted to.
The Pledge of Allegiance is disrespectful!

Saying the Pledge of Alleigiance is not that hard. You just stand up, place your hand over your heart, and say the phrase; that is it. Not complicated at all! Also with he saying of "Under God", we must remember that the country of the United States was found by the Christian belief so it obviously descended from that idea. Like my opponent even said "Sure students don't have to say it if they don't want to, but in the younger grades, God is subliminally put in your head". You don't even have to say it if you don't believe it simple as that; but you should show some respect for the country you live in. My opponent claims that it subliminally puts God into childrens minds. For this statement we must remember the idea that its the childs decision of what to believe in. If they choose to believe in God, let them do it; but why worry about a child having God in his head? The childs thought will probably change as years go by and if it doesn't; so what? Let the child believe what they want!
The Pledge of Allegiance is disrespectful!

The Pledge of Allegiance has no purpose. I always hated it, forcing every kid in the classroom to say "one nation under God." Those who don't believe in God could find this offensive. The phrase "Under God" wasn't even in the original Pledge of Allegiance. Sure students don't have to say it if they don't want to, but in the younger grades, God is subliminally put in your head. And when you are that young, you don't even think that you can't say it. There was a student never said the Pledge of Allegiance, and everyday he would get in trouble. He would go to the office, and not care that he was written up. This was in a public school. The PoA needs to stop, or at least have the phrase "under god" cropped out of it.
The Pledge of Allegiance is disrespectful!

My opponent says "The issue is that we are taught it at all. It just doesn't seem fair. How many little kids choose not to say it, even if they don't believe in God? None. They all say it, because they don't know better". Following my opponents idea he is saying that anything we are taught should be gone. You may not agree with a belief, but that doesn't mean its disrespectful. Its like liking milk and someone getting offended because of hating milk. We all have beliefs and that shouldn't mean it is disrespectful. Just because kids follow it doesn't mean that is "bad". That is their decision and you can't control it. My opponent then says "In no way is the pledge disrespecting our country, it's disrespecting the people in our country". My opponents flaw is he failed to define the type of disrespect were talking about, which results in the word implying anywhere. And my opponent even admits it doesn't disrespect the country saying "In no way is the pledge disrespecting our country".
The Pledge of Allegiance is disrespectful!

Even though we choose whether to say it or not, the issue is that we are taught it at all. It just doesn't seem fair. How many little kids choose not to say it, even if they don't believe in God? None. They all say it, because they don't know better. In no way is the pledge disrespecting our country, it's disrespecting the people in our country. Yes, you can avoid saying it and still show respect to the country. Once again, I'm not talking about the Pledge disrespecting the country, I'm talking about the Pledge disrespecting the people of the country. Good argument and Good luck.
The Catological argument is sound

Okay ok ok, so ok. Ok. Okay ummmm ok.so yeah ok.Con wont be able to argue in R4 because he has to reinact brokeback mountioun or something. Idc Im bi and I dont judge people on that kinda stuff. Hell this one time I did it with a tranny. Looked like a women. So I was like w/e and went anal. Best sex ever 10/10. Shes a post op now. Great gal or guy...."d. Such as, if cats proved the existence of God then why aren't they treated better? "Cats prove god but cats arent special. Some cats are utter bastards. like this one What a basterd."Also, why is it when you go to Church you don't hear that cats prove the existence of God"Because the mainstream media is surpressing it."Ok, so I did a test! I asked a few of my friends and my Religion teacher to watch the video and they all said the same thing "Well, it was cute, but I didn't feel God" -Patrick's friends and Religion teacher."You most likley didnt present it correctly. You have to present it exactily as I did. You hav to tell thems about the body natural logic seeking and tell them to open up wide so it can enter you(phrasing)."The other thing is what about the people who hate cats? "They were most likely molested by their creepy uncle in a cat costume. I have written a paper on this in college for my psychology final. It published.Cats do in fact have the best moral aestetic beuty, to prove it i have another argument1. Look at a cute cat.2. Know they are the best.C. Know they have the best moral aestetic beuty.Thats how you can see it. Con has done the failing. He never did the refutings to my argue that good. God is real and cats proves it!
The Catological argument is sound

Anyway, back to the debate. Some of my questions or statements still do stand. Such as, if cats proved the existence of God then why aren't they treated better? If cats did in fact prove the existence of God, they would ALL be treated better. Also, why is it when you go to Church you don't hear that cats prove the existence of God? And or why is it not on the newspapers saying " Cats prove the existence of God! " Ok, so I did a test! I asked a few of my friends and my Religion teacher to watch the video and they all said the same thing "Well, it was cute, but I didn't feel God" -Patrick's friends and Religion teacher. So I kind of find it hard to believe that pro has converted four atheists. And what is this about the Greater Good? !? ! Did anyone get better during World War II? No! The other thing is what about the people who hate cats? Do they not believe in God or do they go to Hell or what? ! I would also like to add that it's not just cats that have "beauty" any animal can. Which is why I think that saying "Cats have the perfect aesthetic moral beauty" Is an opinion and not a fact. Also Jedi, it's hard to take you seriously when you use slang terms. .. I actually had to look up what "pwns" means. (It means own)