BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social media should be banned for children under the age of 14.

I agree on the statement that social media should be banned for children under the age of 14 because - brain development is slowed down because of overusing. - it can cause mental illnesses, like a depression. - it can cause aggression. The children might see something on the Internet about another person that they don't agree on. Instead of saying this face to face they get angry. - it can cause obesity because the time children used to play outside is now spent on social media. - it can cause addictions. Nowadays there are many clinics with Internet-addicted children. The children in those clinics just don't know how to stop anymore.
That Dogs Should be Allowed on Hong Kong Public Housing Estates

Since Con instigated the debate, the topic is a claim, and it is a proposed change to the status quo; the BoP is fully on Con. Thus, I will start right away with refuting his/her case. Con's first argument is that dogs will bark; which results in noise pollution. This problem is easily solved by my counter-plan; require all dogs to be "de-barked". This procedure costs less than $100 dollars, and is covered by most insurances [1]. Thus, families can happily enjoy their family pets while avoiding noise pollution. Con's second argument is that dogs shed hair, and thus the resident's have to deal with this nuisance. There are actually several ways to eliminate shedding. Such as; brushing regularly, feed appropriate pet food, feed a vitamin supplement like VitacoatPlus, and bathe regularly in the summer [2]. Families can also shave off all the dog's hair, eliminating this problem, while letting families enjoy animal companionship. [1] . http://www.whattoexpect.com...[2] . http://www.drsfostersmith.com...
That Dogs Should be Allowed on Hong Kong Public Housing Estates

Good afternoon everyone. Now, back to my main points. We believe that if dogs are allowed in Hong Kong public housing estates, they will cause not only a public nuisance, but will lead to further problems. I will now explain the many disturbances of having dogs in public housing estates. Even the most highly trained dogs cannot resist in barking sometimes, and that can lead to noise pollution. Even in places where houses are widely spread, it is a big problem. And it would be much worse in public housing estates, as they are more cramped. The banning of dogs in Hong Kong public housing estates would greatly reduce the amount of noise pollution, something which most people want. Furthermore, dogs frequently shed fur everywhere. There is no known way to prevent this from happening. As a result, the residents of the public housing estates have to suffer from the indignity of stepping over dog fur. Why should they have to do so when they have done nothing wrong? It is simply and utterly inconsiderate to leave dog fur everywhere while blocking others" paths. All in all, we strongly believe that if dogs are allowed in Hong Kong public housing estates, they will cause not only a public nuisance, but will lead to further problems, and that this motion must fall. Thank you.
Resolved: The earth is billions of years old as said in evolution

Con presents nothing but unsubstantiated assertions without warrants, implications, or sources.Responding to Con1. Evolutionists don't claim life began when Earth was formed. "Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and for much of that history it has been home to life in one weird form or another...The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Australia that are about 3.4 billion years old. Ancient as their origins are, these bacteria (which are still around today) are already biologically complex — they have cell walls protecting their protein-producing DNA, so scientists think life must have begun much earlier, perhaps as early as 3.8 billion years ago." http://www.msnbc.msn.com...;2. This is irrelevant to the age of the Earth, as Evolution demonstrates that the homo spaiens species originated between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago through speciation, the formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution. Thus, the age of one out of billions of species does not provide an adequate measure of planetary age. http://www.nsf.gov...;3. "The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon. The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a total fabrication. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon's surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this." Sources: Thompson, Tim, 1996. Meteorite dust and the age of the earth. http://www.talkorigins.org...;Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org...; Round 3: No scientist or evolutionist claims that humans were alive for billions of years. Check the source I provided in my refutation of my opponent's second point. I'm not sure what to say about the other things he has posted other than they are unsubstantiated and unsourced with little coherence or cogency.To the Con.
Resolved: The earth is billions of years old as said in evolution

I am sorry about my spelling error. I meant ten thousand years for an inch of dust. Also for those who do not think that humans were alive in the first few billions of years, there has never been a single fossil or skeleton found of any other creature but ones classified today. Also every year we get closer to the sun. Even if there was a different evolution of humans, the earth would either be burned alive today or to cold for any life when it was created. To my opponent, please put an argument this round instead of forfeiting.
Resolved: The earth is billions of years old as said in evolution

Thank you for accepting. This has been an interesting topic to me. To start I will list some age related facts: 1. The earth slows down one thousandth of a second a day. If the earth was billions of years old, when it was created it would of spinned too fast to live on. 2. Population grows averagely at a steady rate each year. If we use math to calculate the time needed to multiply to today's population, the result is roughly six thousand years. 3. Space dust accumulates on the moon about one inch for every thousand years. Astronaughts have witnessed that the dust is only a little more than half an inch. This, therefore, points toward 6-7 thousand years old.
Ten Second Aggression

1. We practiced A LOT, for at least a few hours... every sunday unless our drummer was with her BOY FRIEND. God damn. After a year or 2 that counts for something 2. You are right... they were teh same but that just made us better. See also: punk rock http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. That someone didnt have their shenanigans up loud at the masq 4. David's vocals while at times sweet and soft, were also hard and rough like his beard 5. touche. 6. Patrick got better 7. Rikko's ego made our band more awesome. 8. We were ambitious! EVERYONE LOVED US WE HAD PASSING TONES See also Creative loafing www.georgiamusicdirectory.com/gyrobase/Music/ViewMusicEntry?oid=oid%3A209558 Also youtube, Everyone loved us and we were hard core. that means we had a great FING BANDW. We pissed off wheeler admins which is basically what this comes down to which she didnt even touch. 10 SA UBER ALLIS
Ten Second Aggression

Reasons why we sucked bad: 1. We never EVER practiced efficently 2. Are songs, while catchy, had about all the same chords..and progressions 3. You could never hear us on stage because SOMEBODY had their guitar turned on WAY too loud. 4. David's vocals 5. Emma's drumming 6. Patrick's late-ness 7. Rikko's ego 8. We worried about things too far in advance like, "HEY LETS LIEK MAKE SHIRTS! AND GO ON A TUR!", when we hadn't even written a good set list.
Playing Video Games are greater in benefits than reading Fiction Books.

Thanks for Rezamme to make post his rebuttal. First I will answer to his rebuttals, make some minor arguments, and also make some rebuttals. I have an answer. Of course books are way easier to access because there is free public library where you can get access to books. Also most books are about 5$. However, if you play games you need a phone or computer. Usual computers are 1000$ and a phone, you have to pay montly.Note: This is a serious debate. I just did that to not be sleepy.2. However books are entertaining too. If you end fast, you will start reading the next one.Now I will go on to my minor arguments.1. I think there are a whole host of reasons. Books have, of course, been around for a lot longer than video games and so have had longer to be accepted into the cultural canon, the world over. They’ve also have had longer to develop as an art form – writers have the comparatively larger weight of literary history behind them to learn from, to reference and to improve upon. In fact, as a general point, there are more books in existence than there are video games (humans have been writing for much longer than they’ve been programming) so, purely from a statistical standpoint, there are more good books out there than there are good video games. (And, naturally, there is a veritable ocean of literary tripe out there too, which certainly overwhelms the number of crappy video games in exactly the same way. Simply because there’s more to choose from.) I think there’s a crucial difference in perception too. Books are studied in virtually all schools, colleges and universities, whereas video games are studied far, far less often; instead, they’re played. We can all remember being in a classroom as a child, labouring through the finer points of a book or poem, but hardly any of us have ever studied the complexities of gaming in an academic environment. Consequently, books appear to be more ‘serious’ and ‘smart’, whereas video games are associated with ‘fun’ and ‘frivolity’. Now I will go onto my rebuttals.However even though you have quicker speed in those situations that is not really true. You don't need fast speed in playing games. You need fast reflexes. For example, if a ball just comes straight to you, if you have fast reflexes from your game. I am saying you don't really need those skills. If you do sports, you can use your fast reflexes. I am not saying you can do this in a book, However it is better than a game.You don't need motor skills. It is the same thing. Games do not give you the time learning literature except for looking at the gmae name or such.
Playing Video Games are greater in benefits than reading Fiction Books.

Ever since the 90's the video game industry has been developing at a rapid pace. From first-person shooters like Halo to strategy games such as Civilization 5, video games have effected the millennial generation in varying fashions. One might wonder if any of these video games provide more than just entertainment. According to several studies... they do. Video Games Train the Brain for Quicker Learning and Decision Making. Reading Fiction Books Do Not. When you play action packed video games with lots of quick time movement, your learning speed increases as the action packed games are usually quick paced. For example, in a game such as Halo, you are required to see multiple activities happening at once, if you fail to see one, it can result in the death of your character. If you are still wondering how your learning speed increases, it is quite simple, fast paced video games require people to think fast and learn quickly from their mistakes. Meaning, you cant just pick up a controller and go into a Halo game thinking you will do well, it takes skill, skills such as quick thinking and learning quickly. It is required in-order to do well. Now if you cant correlate how this can help you out side the gaming world, here is how it will help. Quick decision-making/learning can be used in many ways in the real world, in school it can give you an edge when it comes to learning, on the road you wont take as long in making a decision, and in the workplace being able to prove to your boss that you are a quick thinker can definitely impact your career (depends on the job). Fiction books do not provide a benefit such as this. Video Games Enhance Fine Motor Skills. When you first start playing video games, you probably looked at the controller repeatedly so you could play the game properly, after time you abandoned this habit, for your fine hand motor skills have vastly improved. Fine hand motor skills or motor skills in general allow people make precise actions. An example of this is when you are parking a vehicle, if you go back n forth trying to park, you probably have poor motor skills. If you park in one swoop, you motor skills are probably on the higher end. So in the basics playing video games can increase your motor skills substantially. Fiction books do not provide any motor skill other than turning a page. In general, playing video games can improve the brain in multiple degrees. From hand-eye coordination to problem solving skills, it has numerous benefits that can be applied to real life. While fiction books on the hand only provide entertainment and I guess if you read enough, a better vocabulary/reading speed. It is quite apparent that video games provide a plethora of benefits compared to reading the dusty, old, book (fiction). Sources: http://www.sciencealert.com... https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.everydayhealth.com...
Playing Video Games are greater in benefits than reading Fiction Books.

I accept.DefinitionsVideo Games: an electronic game in which players control images on a television or computer screenBenifits: a good or helpful result or effectFiction Books: written stories about people and events that are not real : literature that tells stories which are imagined by the writerSourceshttp://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Playing Video Games are greater in benefits than reading Fiction Books.

I will be making an argument on how playing video games will outperform the benefits you will receive from reading fiction books. Why fiction books you may ask? It is only fair due to the fact that there is very little non fiction video games, and comparing non fiction to fiction will not be fair due to both having different purposes. Video games are generally to entertain while fiction books hold the same niche. The negative will try to disprove my arguments and provide points on how reading fiction books can be advantageous compared to video game playing. The arguments may vary as long as they stay on topic. Furthermore, when I say 'benefit' I am complying to which has better psychological benefits and which provides more entertainment. First round will be acceptance. Second will be our first arguments. Third will be our rebuttals and fourth will be the basic conclusion of the entire debate.
god's existence cannot be proven

I did not say your argument was for order. I said it was analogous. But that the same arguments taht refute order also refute perception. You explicitly say" there are NO concrete objects". What's your basis for this? empiracally speaking, things deductively must be concrete, that's how our perceptions are all the same. You can't just assume randomly that things are not concrete and random and God is the only way our perceptions are the same. That's not the simplest solution or most obvious; the most obvious is that things are concrete and we each perceive it same only because the things we perceive are the same. Your idea is like saying... we can't prove what a shadow is from, so we'll assume it's an alien space ship.... your argument is random. actually, the argument that it's an alien space ship has more merit because aliens could exist, than does saying that reality is unordered, because that's contra our perceptions but aliens is not necessarily. our perceptions are the only way we can tell things about the world. it's like you're saying.... we don't have to abide by what logic tellls us? why do we have to? since logic is the only way you could convince me, I choose not to abide by it, and so we don't have to abide by logic? your argument is at best a possibility. not a definitive proof.
god's existence cannot be proven

No, my argument is not an argument for order. Please don't assimilate my argument with one you can answer. Perceptions form ideas in our minds. There are NO concrete objects. This means, in order for us to access ideas external to our mind, not only do we have to interact with others, but, when others are not present, there must be some kind of higher mind that holds every concept at once. We exchange perceptions with this mind which gives us the perceptions that we perceive. More simply put, we perceive the world. In order for us to perceive anything, God must be the higher mind that contains all of these ideas that we perceive. I argue that nothing exists but perceptions. In order for the mind to be stimulated, these perceptions are put in front of us. The only way for those things to be there is if some higher mind contains them simultaneously and we are able to access them. The existence of God is necessary to explain our empirical data and perceptions.
god's existence cannot be proven

Berekley's argument proves the necessity of the existence of God. He argues for the existence of God through abstract idealism. Basically, there are no such thing as concrete objects. Only perceptions exist in the mind. Therefore, the consistency we see in our perceptions is due to the fact that they must exist in some higher mind (God). I will elaborate on this in the next round, but as none of your preemptive arguments apply to this one, I think we should address the fundamentals. As far as I can tell... your argument is consistency of our perceptions translates into God must exist. That's basically analogous to if there's order, then God must exist. Not so. If God could just exist, then order, or consistency of our perceptions could just exist. Consistency could just be, because our perceptions all reflect the reality around us. That's simply evolution.
god's existence cannot be proven

Berekley's argument proves the necessity of the existence of God. He argues for the existence of God through abstract idealism. Basically, there are no such thing as concrete objects. Only perceptions exist in the mind. Therefore, the consistency we see in our perceptions is due to the fact that they must exist in some higher mind (God). I will elaborate on this in the next round, but as none of your preemptive arguments apply to this one, I think we should address the fundamentals. Thanks
Legally holding someone responsible if bullying ending in victim death

1: G2;plājəG6;rīz/verbgerund or present participle: plagiarizingtake (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.synonyms:copy, infringe the copyright of, pirate, steal, poach, appropriate; Morecopy from (someone) and pass it off as one's own.-Merium WebsterI am not plagarizing. I am not passing it off as my own. I gave full credit to the stories and websites. Therefore I am not plagarizing so my arguments are in deed valid. 2; You never gave the website or article where you found your information so in a way you are plagarizing whereas I am not.3: Your story just supports my cause. Because of bullying someone shot themselves. We can't stop the, from shooting themselves, but if we can stop the bullying we might be able to decrease the death rate of students who get bullied. 4: all previous arguments still stand valid and firm.
Legally holding someone responsible if bullying ending in victim death

But the one most hurt by bullying is the bully himself though that's not at first obvious and the effects worsen over the life cycle. Yes, females can be bullies too. They just favor a different means of mean. On the first day of spring in 1993, honor student Curtis Taylor took his seat in the eighth-grade classroom he had grown to hate in the Oak Street Middle School in Burlington, Iowa. For three years other boys had been tripping him in the hallways, knocking things out of his hands. They'd even taken his head in their hands and banged it into a locker. Things were now intensifying. The name-calling was harsher. Some beloved books were taken. His bicycle was vandalized twice. Kids even kicked the cast that covered his broken ankle. And in front of his classmates, some guys poured chocolate milk down the front of his sweatshirt. Curtis was so upset he went to see a school counselor. He blamed himself for the other kids not liking him.That night, Curtis went into a family bedroom, took out a gun, and shot himself to death. The community was stunned. The television cameras rolled, at least for a few days. Chicago journalist Bob Greene lingered over the events in his column, and then he printed letters from folks for whom the episode served largely as a reminder of their own childhood humiliations at the hands of bullies. Later, after the bullies saw what they had caused, went to the school counselor and broke down. They told the counselor that it was all their fault, and said that they were bullied many times too, and wanted to release their pain. I would also like to say that the opponent's whole speech is invalid and should be disregarded due to plagerism. I am sorry for the lack of information, but I am very busy with school right now.
Islam is not compatible with secularism

Many thinkers try to introduce Islam as a secular system which doesn"t interfere in social and political affairs. They believe that religion must be completely separate from worldly affairs. In their eyes, the concept of a religious state is backward and outdated. This doctrine doesn"t address the relationship between religion and politics, but it is a radical approach to the role of religion and revelation in shaping human knowledge. This doctrine believes that the human intellect is capable of forming its own knowledge independent of revelation. While Islam doesn"t believe in separation between religion and politics and there are many political verses in the Quran. Also, the life of the Prophet (pbuh) as the founder of Islam shows that when he saw the conditions was ready, he established government. Furthermore, the religion and revelation have important role in shaping human knowledge as it mentioned by Muslim scholars.
India to become superpower should focus on primary educaion for all or higher education for few

First of all I want to make one thing clear about the topic of debate to my opponent.. The topic is whether India should focus on giving primary education to all or higher education for few.. I have given many of my points in the first round itself so by making them elaborate I want to say that primary education is the necessity and higher education depends on an individual.. It is this primary education which makes you aware of what is happening in the world.. If you are giving primary education to all so they can decide by themselves whether they want to pursue higher education or not