BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Talking on the phone while driving should be outlawed in the United States of America.

If I have A, B, and C, and A and B both lead to C. However, I delete B because it leads to C but do nothing, and plan to do nothing with A[...] Then what is the point of even deleting B?" _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Less C. We agree that cell phones are distracting to drivers. Your only defense is that drivers are distracted by other things as well as cell phones. Suppose cell phones are B and all of the other distractions you listed are A. If both lead to C (dangerous driving), then cutting out B (cell phones) may not completely eliminate C, but curbs it significantly. If we recognize that a certain habit creates dangerous driving and have the ability to stop it, we have an obligation to all other drivers on the road to do so. Again, personal convenience and amusement should not supersede public safety. Claiming we shouldn't ban cell phones because they are not the only distractions is like allowing a crime simply because there are countless other people committing it also. Just because banning cell phones would not completely solve the problem, doesn't mean it isn't a step in the right direction. The less distracted drivers are the better. It doesn't matter what the odds of dying in a car crash are (even though I don't find a 1/100 chance appealing). Even if cell phones only present a marginal distraction, its in society's best interest to protect drivers by eliminating it. The reason this is true with cell phones and not the other distractions you mentioned is two fold. First, I don't need to defend those distractions; this is a debate about cell phone use. Second, cell phone use is purely a convenience and can be outlawed and enforced easily. The only thing that presents as much of a distraction as cell phones is passenger conversation, but this is obviously not easily banned. So, we agree that safety supersedes convenience and that cell phones present a distraction to drivers (we differ on degree). To sacrifice any degree of safety on the road for a minor convenience is ridiculous. What do we have to gain from keeping cell phones legal? Amusement? Convenience? Doesn't seem like much of a plus in the face of more dangerous roads. Thanks for the debate. I enjoyed it. Good luck.
Resolved: Talking on the phone while driving should be outlawed in the United States of America.

I don't defend any of the other distractions you pointed out. Just because other distractions exist, doesn't mean outlawing cell phones wouldn't be helpful in keeping drivers focused. Your argument against my logic is a slippery slope fallacy. The presence of all of the distractions you listed is all the more reason to ban cell phones. Drivers are as distracted as ever and cell phones present one of the few opportunities to battle those distractions. Its hard to ban conversation with passengers or listening to music, but talking on a cell phone while driving is identifiable and actionable. A cop can see someone talking on their cell phone, just as they can see someone not wearing a seatbelt, and enforce the law. Also, talking on the phone while driving is especially distracting. While billboards and car radios are background distractions, cell phones command more attention and an extra hand. If I am having a conversation, I have to listen to what they are saying, process it, form a response, etc., completely taking my mind off of the task at hand. What makes talking on the cell phone distinct from conversation with a passenger is the phone itself. I have to drive with one hand because I'm holding the phone to my ear, or doing the awkward head-shoulder-lean-and-pinch maneuver. Also, it would be ridiculous and impossible to ban conversations with passengers. However, all of this is irrelevant. I do not need to prove that car radios are good or that billboards are ok, only that cell phone use should be outlawed. We agreed to the terms of this question earlier. If cell phone use distracts drivers, then they (and their cell phones) become a danger to other drivers on the road. As personal convenience does not override other's right to drive securely, cell phones use should be banned. Your only refute to this is your citation of all of the other distractions drivers are faced with. This, however, provides all the more reason to cut back on one of the largest distractions. Thanks for you response, looking forward to another one. Good luck.
Resolved: Talking on the phone while driving should be outlawed in the United States of America.

Sorry about that, and thank you! Good luck to you also. 1) "These type of debates always boil down to free choice, so I'm just going to address it now. Talking on your phone while driving significantly distracts you, thereby endangering other drivers on the road. This substantial risk to other people means your decision to talk on your phone while driving is outside the realm of a 'personal decision' and can not be legitimized by civil liberties or free will." Now in first site of this, it sounds perfectly ok. Civil liberties of others as well need to be taken into consideration, however taking away talking on the phone is not going to do this. My opponent, SuperPeFundo, is under the misconceived notion that if we eliminate people from talking on the phone while driving then it will eliminate distractions, and that is the reason it should be outlawed. By this logic, cars should consisted of only one seat, gas and breaks, the wheels, and the steering wheel. Car radios should also be outlawed due to his reasoning, and street advertisements and billboards should be outlawed. The same distractions are also present when someone is siting in the car with the driver. Seeing as how people aren't going to be silent while driving , the same distraction "talking to someone while you're driving" is going to be present whether you outlaw phones or not, making their outlawed status be underminded and pointless. Bottom line is, the same distraction whether you're on the phone, or talking to someone in the car is present either way. Maybe even more so with driving with passengers because you sometimes like to look at the people you're takling to in your car, but you can't look at anyone on the phone.
Resolved: Talking on the phone while driving should be outlawed in the United States of America.

While personally I talk on the phone often while driving, I think it should be outlawed. Talking on the phone is one of the most distracting things someone can do while driving, especially texting. Given that over 100,000 deaths a year are from car accidents and our driving culture in general, we do not need any more distractions. These type of debates always boil down to free choice, so I'm just going to address it now. Talking on your phone while driving significantly distracts you, thereby endangering other drivers on the road. This substantial risk to other people means your decision to talk on your phone while driving is outside the realm of a 'personal decision' and can not be legitimized by civil liberties or free will. Thanks for posting this debate. Looking forward to your response. http://www.cdc.gov...
Dirty Jokes!

Q: Why can't a blonde count to 70? A: Because 69 is a bit of a mouthful. ******** There was this virgin that was going out on a date for the first time and she told her grandmother about it. So, the gramdmother says, "Sit here and let me tell you about those young boys. He is going to try to kiss you, you are going to like that but, don't let him do that. He is going to try to feel your breast, you are going to like that but, don't let him do that. He is going to try to put his hand between your legs, you are going to like that but, don't let him do that. But most importantly, he is going to try to get on top of you and have his way with you. You are going to like that but, don't let him do that, it will disgrace the family." With that bit of advice, the granddaughter went on her date and could not wait to tell her grandmother about it. So, the next day she told her grandmother that her date went just like she had said. "But," she said, "I didn't let him disgrace the family. When he tried that I turned him over, got on top of him and disgraced his family."
Dirty Jokes!

What do a blonde and a barn have in common? They always have a cock in them. ************** One day a little girl came running into her house yelling, "Mommy, I got five dollars!" The mother was curious, so she asked her child where she got the five dollars from. The little girl replied, 'Tommy down the street gave me five dollars for doing cartwheel while he sat in the tree. The mother told her daughter, "Don't you know that Tommy is just trying to see your panties." 'OOOOhhhh' said the little girl. The next day the little girl came running into the house yelling, "Mommy, I got ten dollars. The mother asked, "Where did you get the ten dollars from?" The little girl replied, "Tommy down the street gave me ten dollars for doing a cartwheel while he sat up in the tree and laughed." The mother replied, "Didn't I tell you that he is...' Before the mother could finish, the little girl said, 'Wait Mommy. I tricked him, I didn't wear any panties today.' ************** Children in the backseat can cause accidents. Accidents in the backseat can cause children.
Dirty Jokes!

One day a boy and his mother were watching Cinemax Late Nite, when they saw some people having sex. "What are they doing, Mommy?" "They're making cupcakes." "Were you and Daddy making cupcakes on this couch last night?" "Yes. How did you know?" "Cuz I licked the frosting off this morning." ****************** A guy orders spaghetti in a restaurant. In the middle of eating he finds a hair in his food. He says to the waiter, "I'm not paying for this dirty meal," and walks out. The waiter watches the guy go into a whorehouse. The waiter waits about 10 minutes, bursts through the door and finds the guy with his face buried in p**sy. The waiter says, "You eat p**sy and complain about one hair in your spaghetti." The man replies, "Yeah, and if I find any spaghetti in this p**sy, I'm not paying for it either." ******************* Vote for me, guys! THEVIRUS isn't coming back, and besides, he didn't do anything ;)
Dirty Jokes!

"Jane" was becoming frustrated with her husband's insistence that they have sex in the dark. Hoping to free her husband from his inhibitions, during a passionate evening, she flipped on the lamp -- only to discover a cucumber in his hand. Is THIS what you've been using on me for the past 10 years!?!" "Honey! Let me explain!" "Why you sneaky bastard!" she screamed. "You impotent S.O.B.!!!" "Speaking of sneaky!" he interrupted, "Maybe you'd care to explain our two kids!!! *********** A guy and a girl are lying in a dorm-room bed after just having sex. The guy lies on his side of the bed and rests. The girl rolls to her side of the bed and says to herself, "I finally did it! I'm no longer a virgin." The guy overhears her talking to herself and asks, "Are you saying you lost your virginity to me?" "Well," the girl explains, "I always wanted to wait until I was with the man I love to lose my virginity." Astounded, the guy replies, "So you really love me?" "Oh God no!" the girl says. "I just got sick of waiting." *********** Two college roommates are about to go to bed. The guy in the top bunk has his girlfriend sleeping over. To try and keep quiet, they devise a code. His girlfriend will say "tomato" if she wants him to go slower and "lettuce" for him to go faster. As they begin to have sex, the girl starts to moan, "Lettuce, lettuce, tomato, tomato!" The roommate on the bottom bunk wakes up the next morning and says, "Stop making sandwiches at night. You got mayonnaise in my eye!"
Border wall between USA and Mexico.

According to your own source lots of these crimes are drug dealers. "drug dealers are crossing into the U.S. amid the wave of hard-working families seeking a better life." [4]By a combination of legalizing and decriminalizing drugs we can put an end to a good portion of these crimes. The other problem is lax deportation hearings. Illegal immigrants with convictions should be locked up. "David Inserra, a policy analyst for Homeland Security and Cybersecurity at The Heritage Foundation, said letting illegal immigrants convicted of crimes go free while they await deportation hearings is putting the public at risk." [4]As for the idea of a hostile nation suddenly overthrowing Mexico, that is ridiculous. Even so, I doubt a wall will do much in today's world of explosives, tanks, and aircraft. If you really want to stop the immigrants putting more boots on the ground is the answer. [1] This would provide many jobs in lieu of a wall. In fact, because the wall will be finished eventually, having guards patrol the borders would provide more jobs in the long term. In conclusion, if you really want to stop the crime wave of illegal immigrants a three part solution is needed. 0. Decriminalization of all drugs.1. Legalization of pot.2. More patrols Thanks for the debate.Sources4. http://www.foxnews.com...
Apartments are better than Houses

Apartment is able to provide enough living space for populations such as India, Brazil, China and Hong Kong. House is currently not suitable for these civilizations. Apartment if well designed, will be able to create a positive and healthy urban community. House in the up coming future can hardly forming such kind of communal space.Community formed by a series of apartments can be highly urbanized and efficient. In this instance, efficiency refers to efficient service system, efficient traffic system and efficient security system, etc. In the future, apartment can be flexible in terms of circulation. Apartment is a kind of building type and concept that can be reconsidered in modern era and in future. The concept of a house is already fixed.
Apartments are better than Houses

Me as Pro will argue that an apartment is superior to a house in MODERN days. Con will argue that house is superior to apartment The word "better" can be both subjective and objective so you can use any resource as your argument to prove that one is better than other. Round one is for acceptance and round 2,3,4 is for open debate. As mentioned the background of the debate is set in 21st century and beyond. Any question can be discussed in comment
Apartments are better than Houses

<< When you live in an apartment, you don't have. .. [a] yard [to] upkeep. >> Fixed. Having a yard is a positive attribute, not a negative. To have space to hang out with friends, raise the kids, and do your neighborhood cookout is definitely a good thing. <<Con mentioned shooter senario. You all know a good apartment has security system which a house doesn't have. In apartment a person must validate the smartcard in order to get through the front gate and use the lift. It is so much safer than living in a house. >>The majority of apartments don't have this type of security system, only the ones that are higher income. The equivalent of an apartment complex with a smart card system is a gated community for houses. I stand by my previous contention. <<In winter, people don't have to worry about maintaining landscape if there is snow. Usually this is taken care of by the owner of the building. For house residence will have to do the clearing work. >>Not many people have ever seriously thought "Gee, I really hate picking up this snow. I hate it so much that I want to downgrade my living conditions to a small, condensed space and lose all my outside property and privacy. " My point is that although upkeep may be more for a house, it's better to have something worth keeping up than to not have it. I'd like to point out that you did not acknowledge the majority of my contentions. Handed right back to PRO.
Apartments are better than Houses

Thank you Con.When you live in an apartment, you don't have to worry about yard upkeep. Buying an house is too expensive and not worth it. Some of the dealers will always over price the house.Con mentioned shooter senario. You all know a good apartment has security system which a house doesn't have. In apartment a person must validate the smartcard in order to get through the front gate and use the lift. It is so much safer than living in a house. In winter, people don't have to worry about maintaining landscape if there is snow. Usually this is taken care of by the owner of the building. For house residence will have to do the clearing work.hand it back to Con
Distracted Driving

Thank you for instigating this debate, DaarMaad.I affirm that distracted driving is a positive thing due to following case. Affirmative CaseDefinitions: Distracted Driving"Distracted Driving" is defined by Wikipedia as: "the act of driving while engaged in other activities—such as looking after children, texting, talking on the phone or to a passenger, watching videos, eating, or reading" [1]. My arguments will be in accordance with this definition.Premise: Time is valuable.I declare it self-evident that time is valuable, based on its limited nature (in regards to human life). Affirmative ArgumentsLink: EfficiencyDistracted Driving is advantageous, in that limited time is better spent on more than one activity. For example, talking on a hands-free device, like the top ones listed at Boston.com, allows for people to drive *and* talk [2]. Compared to someone who merely drives, this is clearly more efficient. Thus, the positive result here is that time is saved.Eating, in regards to driving, is also time-efficient, therefore is desirable. However, driving with an empty stomach has *also* shown to hurt concentration. Therefore, if you're hungry, you should drive distracted and eat, so as to improve your concentration [4].Link: Talking has benefitsA 2006 study found that talking about negative experiences will lead to improved life satisfaction [3]. Therefore, it should be recommended that people talk in the car, because not only is it efficient, but it also has positive mental-health outcomes.ConclusionFor the reasons outlined in my Affirmative Case, I offer you a fulfillment of the resolution, and a reason to vote Pro. Thank you.References[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.boston.com...[3] http://r.duckduckgo.com...[4] https://www.mindtools.com...
Spore (the game) might just change the world!

Right into final rebuttals "All that I am saying is that it MIGHT change the way many people see the world. And allow me to emphasise another important point about what i am agruing for. I am not saying that it will definitly change the world, just that there is a chance that it will. It "*might* *just* change the world." As long as there is a chance i win the debate." Of course, anything could change the world, me posting my argument to this debate might change the way the world works. The debate is not won by pro if they can prove there is a chance for world changing, because this would place an insurmountable burden on Con. I proposed a proper burden for pro in my first response, and it went un contested, which means it was accepted. "I'm going to define 'changing the world' more specifically for the purposes of this resolution that alters the modern human culture to the point of being felt by the average non-gamer." (my words) "On the other hand teaching/understanding/believing in evolution does..." As stated before, this game isn't just marketed to children, and for the children that do get this game, it will be viewed as just that, a game. I wish my opponent had proved to the voters and myself how this game will influence children specifically. "Such games however, do not contest the entire world view of a large body of voters. Spore Does!" There have been plenty of intense provocative games released to the market (see previous), and they haven't changed the world. Also, we were never presented evidence regarding the size of this 'voting bloc' or how it is known they will be effected by this game. "If creationism wins out an ecomonic catastrophy is gaurenteed." I would have preferred if there was some evidence shown that creationists are close to over-running true science in America. Sure, they have a following, but no proof has been shown that they are negating America's scientific capability. Why vote Con? All points refuted, burden is
Spore (the game) might just change the world!

"my opponent sings high praises of the game, explaining how it will be awesome" 1. I really need to clarify this: I NEVER said that spore would be AWESOME, nor have i praised it in anyway. I am not even saying that the game will be good. All that I am saying is that it MIGHT change the way many people see the world. And allow me to emphasise another important point about what i am agruing for. I am not saying that it will definitly change the world, just that there is a chance that it will. It "*might* *just* change the world." As long as there is a chance i win the debate. 2. Re: my opponent's comments on -Not trusting aliens, -Starting new societies, -Running/ collecting rings These issues don't have practical applications on the majority of people's lives. On the other hand teaching/understanding/believing in evolution does as there is a huge uprise of creationsim in america trying to put an end to this understanding. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 3. Essays, Books, Scrolls, TV, and Video Games are all forms of media. (i.e means of communication, dictionary.com) Any form of media has the potential to change peoples outlook on life. Video games arnt noted for this quality today bc they haven't dealt/taught relevent issues. MGS and other games may deal will some issues like this, in these cases im sure that they do change some people's opinions. Such games however, do not contest the entire world view of a large body of voters. Spore Does! 4. Today our entire society relies on science. The country with the most advanced science is the most powerful. We have been in constant competition to hold this title. Scientific advancement relies on public funding. Science will only be publicly funded if people understand the importance of science. Creationism teaches that science isn't as important as it truly is. If creationism wins out an ecomonic catastrophy is gaurenteed. Spore might help!