BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teenagers Should Have Unlimited Access to Computers and The Internet

If this took effect, parents would understand that the years pre-age-13 would be the time for them to learn good computer habits. Currently, parents do not enforce correct internet usage because they restrict it as a whole. If it was unlimited, parents would know that they should teach their children how to use the internet safely, which would result in a better understanding of the internet, unlike many children who spend their days trolling the internet and/or putting themselves in danger without understanding the consequences. My opponent says: "...it is a well-established fact that kids (especially teenagers) do not always do what their parents tell them." I agree with this argument, however, I believe that the less restrictions that are put on children, the more cooperative they become. If a parent is loose and lets their children do things on their own, they will 1) become more independent, and 2) have the children become more cooperative, because they are not actively being restricted. If limitations are constantly being placed on a child, a child will learn to dislike the aforementioned restrictions. But if few limitations are being placed, the child will be more willing to abide when one comes along. Perhaps I made a mistake when I began this debate. I meant to say that children should have unlimited use of the INTERNET. By unlimited, I mean that there are no restrictions placed on the activities they take on when browsing the internet. If parents feel the need to restrict usage of the computer, they can, but when the child is using computer, they can have unlimited access to the internet and the content on it. I understand that a child can click "I'm over 18", and enter a pornographic site, but the child will be breaking a law. This is no different from saying that if there is a law for stealing, then I can walk into a store and take a computer without paying for it. The former law is much easier to break, but it is still a law that is being broken. My opponent repeatedly states that the definition of unlimited is "unconditional, lacking any and all restrictions". However, people have different opinions about what something can mean, and in my mind, the meaning can be altered to fit a point of view. My point of view, as I've stated a few times before, is that access of the INTERNET should be unlimited, which means that children are free to view whatever content they would like and partake in any activities that are legal when they are browsing, but parents still have the final call over how they use the computer. However, please keep in mind that a mature child will understand his/her responsibilities and know when it is time to get off. They won't spend all night browsing. They will understand limits.
Teenagers Should Have Unlimited Access to Computers and The Internet

Responding to my opponent's recent round: My opponent says: "As I stated in Round One, the child will have had previous instruction in good habits on the internet from their parents" This was not stated in round 1. However, my response is that you cannot assume that all children will have been taught perfect time management skills, how to use moderation, and how to avoid sharing too much personal information by age 13. Age 14 is when most students enter high school, when the workload increases to the point where they are forced to learn good time management (called a "teachable moment"). There may not have been enough teachable moments by age 13 for all children to learn all the necessary skills. Secondly, it is a well-established fact that kids (especially teenagers) do not always do what their parents tell them. They often need constant reminders/reinforcement and don't learn things the first time they are told. My opponent says: "if the parent believes that they are not getting important things done such as homework, they can make sure the child will get their homework done before using the computer." This is a form of restriction, specifically the restriction that "you may not use the computer until your homework is done." Finishing homework is a "condition" that must be fulfilled before computer access is allowed. I refer everyone back to my definition, that "unlimited" means "unconditional," i.e. lacking any conditions on use. My opponent points out that he is a teenager with straight A's. However, he has yet to prove in this round that his parents placed absolutely no restrictions on his internet use. Even if my opponent could prove this, his argument is still a logical fallacy: generalizing from too small a sample size. Just because one person has unlimited internet access and straight A's doesn't mean every person is the world can do the same. My opponent claims that "the child will be assumed to have knowledge of how to use the internet safely." However, children do not use the internet responsibly now. "In a 2006 survey conducted by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Cox Communications, fourteen percent (14%) of children have actually met face-to-face with a person the child had known only online." [1] My opponent claims that children cannot access pornography because of state laws requiring that they be 18. However, most pornography websites use an honor system that has two links: "click this link to enter (18 and above)" and "click this link to leave (under 18)." Children quickly figure out that they can simply click the "I'm over 18" link in order to access pornography. The honor system doesn't work. My opponent's last argument comes once again from his ignoring my definition. Unlimited means unconditional, lacking any and all restrictions. This would include punishments. [1] http://www.dshs.state.tx.us...
Batman would not defeat Goku

After seeing this argument I was very hesitant to click the Accept button because my argument is not what most people would use. Also, it's a very 'cheap' method to defeat my opponent. Please do not hate, it is simply a logical justification. My opponent literally just proved my argument correct. "Goku could outmatch Batman in everything except for academics." - gametimer Definition of defeat: (v.) win a victory over (someone) in a battle or other contest; overcome or beat | (n.) an instance of defeating of being defeated Therefore, Batman could defeat Goku in a match through academics. If my opponent had worded his debate differently, he would be correct in saying that Batman could not beat Goku in a fight. However, since the wording implies that Batman could not defeat Goku in anything, my opponent is wrong in saying that he can't. Batman could defeat Goku in academics, therefore my justification is correct in saying that Batman could defeat Goku. Wordplay is a devious thing.
PC (pro) vs Console (con) [Gaming]

PrefaceThis is a well debated topic. I enjoy debates on this topic and thought it would be very fun to do. Bring the heat on fanboys! By consoles, I am referring to the PS4/Xbox One. You may make references back to some prior generations of consoles and talk about them, but please note that the debate will be focused on these consols only!Full Topic[Same as stated in the title]: PC vs Console [Gaming]FormatRound 1 Pro: States RulesRound 1 Con: AcceptanceRound 2 Pro: Presents his caseRound 2 Con: Presents his/her caseRound 3 Pro: Rebuts to Con's CaseRound 3 Con: Rebuts to Pro's CaseRound 4 Pro: Rebuts to Con's case [specifically adressing arguments made in Round 3]Round 4 Con: Rebuts to Pro's case [specifically adressing arguments made in Round 3]Round 5 Pro: Closing Rebuttals [Specifically towards Con's rebuttals in Round 4] and ConclusionsRound 5 Con: Closing Rebuttals [Specifically towards Pro's rebuttals in Round 4] and ConclusionsRules1. No trolling2. All sources must be cited3. No Forfeiting a round4. The format I have stated must be followed5. Faliure to follow any of the rules stated above will result in an automatic lossCharacter Limit10,000Time to Post Round3 Days==========================================================================================================I look forward to a great debate!
Early marriage leads to the early divorce

It should be noted that in the 50's and 60's, the USA was at it's lowest average age at first marriage (20.3 years old [1]). It should also be noted that the 50's and 60's also had the lowest divorce rate in US history (9 - 10 per 1,000 [2], compared to modern times at around 20 per 1,000). This clearly shows that divorce inversely tied to age. Now, I would accept that many other factors play a role and that this is nothing more than coincedence, that still would show that age does not effect divorce, and so that is still an argument for Con. My opponent states that young marriages lead to young births, however, we can see that in the 60's, the US was at it's lowest average age at first baby (about 23.5 years old [3]). This still complies with the lowest divorce rate period. Another thing to note, is that if we actually look closely at these graphs, we'll notice that in recent times, the average marriage age is going up, while divorce is going down. Some might suggest that this proves that divorce is tied to age, however, if we look back before the 70's, we'll see that the divorce rate was dropping WITH the marriage age, suggesting that they infact benefit each other. These two piece of conflicting evidence only leads to one logical solution, that age is not a real factor in divorce. Looking at other statistics, we find that people (both boys and girls) that get married when under 20 years old are not at the highest risk of divorce, but the 20-24 group is [4]. We can also see that 2nd marriages and 3rd marriages are more likely to end in divorce than 1st marriages, suggesting that personal issues, rather than simple age is the cause. Since if it was a person's age, then as they get older (you have to be older in your 2nd marriage than in your 1st), your odds would be better, not worse. Also, to go back to people with children, we find that couples with children are less likely to get divorced [4], since they feel an obligation to tough it through for the sake of the kids. I will allow my opponent to respond before posting more. Thank you. [1] . http://www.infoplease.com... [2] . http://www.google.com... [3] . http://www.google.com... [4] . http://www.divorcestatistics.org...
Early marriage leads to the early divorce

Nowadays early marriages became a very actual problem, while in some Asian and African countries it is a tradition that has a harmful effect on the young women. To solute this problem it would take too long time in this countries, meanwhile in other countries it could be possible just to rise the marriage age. Unfortunately, it also would take a lot of time to create it. That's why lots of young couples at 18 years (often earlier) marry and begin to live as a family. From this side it is wonderful, but statistics shows that the vast majority of these marriages end with the early divorce. In my point of view it is just the consequence of young people's marriage problems. For example, early marriage often leads to the early pregnancy that could have negative effect on young women. In addition, children it is a new responsibility. I think that at age of 18 people are like children themselves. That's why it would be hard to up bring children without any experience and adults help. Further, if the young couple has a baby, as a result mother would stay with the child at home. It means that education will suffer or she just leaves it. For those who don't have a child, it would difficult to study too. Another main point it is the financial problems, because every family needs to have a budget to live. To decide this problem it necessary to find a job, but the job that would be possible to combine it with the education. In addition it would be job limitation because of the lack of knowledge and unfinished education. As a result, young couple would face with financial problems. How you could imagine two married students, especially with a baby, that don't have enough money to live as a real family in their own home with all of the conveniences. In addition both of them miss the fun of teenage life and there is big responsibility shouldered on them. I don't think that this couple would live together for a long time. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are too rare and it would be incorrect to generalize all young couples by this example. To sum up, I strongly believe, according to these facts that the vast majority of young marriages leads to the early divorce. http://www.instah.com... http://marriage101.org... http://ezinearticles.com...
Early marriage leads to the early divorce

Since this is the final round, I will address my opponent's arguments and provide a summary. The first thing my opponent says is that the real numbers I provided back in Round 1 are "too generalized and we could't use it as a certain exaple or evidence. " My opponent provides no reason or logic why the real world numbers should be dismissed, as such, they still stand. The second thing my opponent brings up is the average cost of a wedding. While average costs are high, they are not an obligation, and poorer people tend to have cheaper weddings. This is a basic fallacy of averages [1]. Just because the average is high, does not mean that all weddings are expensive. The third thing my opponent brings up is that according to Graeme J. Davidson, the #1 factor of divorces is the end of honeymoon stage. This is not true. While the #1 listed reason for divorce is "irreconcilable differences," only 15% of marriages will not make it their 3rd year [2]. This means that 70% of divorces (the vast majority) occur after the honeymoon period has worn off. And 60% of divorces occur after 5 years, well after the honeymoon period is long over. Finally, my opponent brings up a phone survey by Ashbel Smith. There are two things wrong with this. 1) Apparently his survey found a large number of people that were "very satisfied" with their marriages but were not "happy," at least 19%. Second, his "survey" suggests that people that marry in their mid-twenties are the least likely to get divorced, however (as pointed out in R1) the reality has shown from actual divorce records, that, for both men and women, getting married in your mid twenties has the highest probability of divorce. In summary, my opponent has not been able to provide any reasoning against the real divorce statistics that getting married in your teens has a lower divorce rate than getting married in your twenties. Nor have they provided any reasoning against the real statistics that in the 50's and 60's, when average age of first marriage was at its lowest, the divorce rate was at its lowest. Although different surveys say different things, the real world statistics are clear. Early marriage does not lead to early divorce. [1] . http://www.ise.ncsu.edu... [2] . http://www.pobronson.com...
Early marriage leads to the early divorce

Let's turn to the final pert of the debates. My opponent said that according to the statistics early marriages are tend to be stronger that 22-25 marriages. However, they are mostly too generalized and we could't use it as a certain exaple or evidence. It is well known that marriages lead to the wedding and its organization.According to The Wedding Report, a Tucson, Ariz.-based research firm, "the average amount couples are spending on a wedding is expected to drop in tandem with the economy, decreasing at least 10% in 2009. In 2008 the average price for a wedding rang in at $21,814. (That's down from $27,490 in 2007.)"-by Maggie Overfelt, CNNMoney.com contributor. Despite the fact that the number of money spend on the weddings decreaases slightly, it is still a big amount. it is obvious that young family doesn't have such money. Even if their parents would pay for wedding, it would't be a solution, because young people first of all want to show their independence. In addition, this family wouldn't feel themselves confident and able to supply themselves. Also, according to by Graeme J. Davidson, March, 2003, number one factor of divorces is the end of thr honeymoon period, that lasts approximately 2 years. It means that young people should have relationships for about a year in order to know more things about each other and about habbits. After that the marriage is really possible. Norval D. Glenn, the Ashbel Smith Professor and Stiles Professor in American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, headed the research project and wrote the report. The Office of Survey Research at the University interviewed, via telephone, a representative sample of 1,503 Americans over the age of 18. ... According to the findings of the survey, it appears that for both men and women there may be a "peak marriage age" in the mid-twenties. People who get married between the ages of 23-27 are much less likely to get divorced than those who marry as teens; they are also much more likely to be in high-quality marriages than people who marry in their late twenties or later. ... 69% of respondents said their marriages were very happy. 88% said they were completely or very satisfied with their marriages. That's why eraly marriages are unstable and young people could meet a lot of diferent problems. Consequently, it is better to marry when you are not very young for it. http://o53xo.orugk33mn5twsy3bnrswi2lunfxw44zomnxw2.biglu.ru...
Time is a line and now is always in the middle.

Considering that time is an open-ended subject. Time can have no figure. Time cannot be a line, with the present at the center. We cannot have an equal amount of past and future, in order to make the present in the middle, because an infinite line cannot have a center point. As you said, "So, do not try and pin time down," That is what you are doing when you make a line and call it time. Then you put a pin in the middle and call it time. Using such a simple analogy does not fit time.
Time is a line and now is always in the middle.

There can be no center of an infinite line because the line has no end. We can only find the center of a line segment. If time were a line, we could take a period of time and find the present. Also, we are now debating a measure or list of events. Considering "time" is infinite, the only way we can measure the passing of time is with other measurements, for example, the movements of subatomic particles. You are talking about all the events that have occurred, are occurring, and will occur.
Time is a line and now is always in the middle.

Time passes? This suggests that time moves. I would suggest that events occur and have a duration. Time passing, is simply how we regard this potential. Past and future is how we regard events that have occurred and events that might occur. Time is an unavoidable consequence of reality. Time always has been and always will be. Therefore now was preceded and will be succeeded by the same potential. Analogically, now is always at the centre of the line.
Time is a line and now is always in the middle.

This statement implies that there is an equal amount of time on both sides of the line. That means that the left side of the line (the past) will get longer in relation to the middle. As that happens, the future side of the line also is also getting longer. If the future is not spontaneous, that means as more time passes, there is more of the future that exists. The only way this would be possible is if evidence were provided that the future is not spontaneous.
(Pro) Spherical vs flat Earth (Con)

Apologies to my opponent for not thoroughly reading his specific rules of this debate. In light of this violation, however minor he claims, I've chosen to forfeit the final round as he suggests. I hope that after this debate, he not only reconsider the idea that the spherical earth theory is fact, but that he starts his own research, and compare the evidence with an unbiased, critical eye. Most intelligent debaters I've faced have either disappeared from DDO, or are still in private conversation with me about it. I encourage him to do the same. I suggest he watch a basic FAQ on the theory, and a few starter videos to clear up the many misconceptions that come with it. I wish him a happy new year, and a prosperous and eye opening 2017.
(Pro) Spherical vs flat Earth (Con)

Round three RebuttalsI openly admit I cannot fully comprehend my opponent's argument, nor will I be able to within the 72 hours time frame. Nevertheless, I will rebut my opponent's argument to the best of my ability. "Anyone who celebrates Christmas can verify this." EdlvsjdJust because anyone can perform the experiment doesn't mean the experiment impacts the resolution. Thus, this experiment is assumed to be a red herring until proven otherwise. [7]"Exposition:This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy. " [7]"We now have an empirically experimentally (objective) proof that the earth is flat." EdlvsjdYou make bold claims, without adequately clarifying how this proves the Earth is flat. At best, this provides supporting evidence. At worst, it is simply a red herring. The Chicago SkylineYou can see very tall buildings in the picture. [8] This is also my profile picture in case the photo fails to load. This is to be expected. If you place a common object on top of a hill and a duplicate of the same object on lower ground, you will be able to see the object on top of the hill from further away. Same with tall objects, if you have a 50 foot high pole next to a 5 foot high pole, you should be able to see the 50 foot high pole from further away. Even, if you are correct in your assessment, this does not prove a flat Earth, this is only evidence. I also supplied plenty of evidence in my round two argument. Finally, by your own logic, not everyone can afford a decent camera. There are many people in the world who can't reasonable perform this experiment personally. GyroscopesGyroscopes provide supporting evidence for a spherical Earth. Otherwise, gyroscopes wouldn't be used in planes. Furthermore gyroscopes are used by NASA in space. [9] Not that I understand this material, but here's how gyroscopes work in airplanes. "A Horizontal gyro at the North Pole shows an apparent drift of 15° per hour as the earth rotates under it. " [10] So I question, why would one experiment point towards a flat Earth and another towards a sherical Earth? I think my opponent cherry picked the evidence that would support his/her claim. "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument." [11]Sources7. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...8. https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com...9. https://science.nasa.gov...10. http://www.theairlinepilots.com...11. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...