BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Daydreaming at the workplace is harmful to productivity.

Since my opponent has forfeited the round, I will argue my case at my own discretion. For my first argument, I would like to point out that our brains are at their most active while we daydream. While daydreaming, several areas of the brain associated with complex problem solving become highly stimulated. The activity of these parts combined with being unfocused allow us to tap into a wider variety of solutions that would normally be considered outside of the normal range of thought. This means that the solutions that are found while daydreaming tend to more innovative and cut-of-the-edge than average. Letting the mind wander is also how many people spark the initial idea to start a business. Since this is the case, without that "waste of time" daydream the workplace itself may not even exist for countless working citizens. For my second argument, I would like to point out that daydreams help to relieve stress and improve mood and memory. Stopping in the middle of a difficult or frustrating task to take a moment and let your mind wander might actually improve performance on said difficult task. By letting the stress build up without an outlet, workers put themselves at higher risk for physical ailments like heart attacks and strokes. A buildup of stress can also lead to psychological problems like depression and anxiety that also affect workplace productivity. All of these conditions are avoidable by allotting employees a certain time period to let it all go. Some of the largest and most prestigious companies out there recognize the benefits of daydreaming and offer programs that encourage it like Google's 20% program and 3M's 15% program. These programs are just as they sound, allotting 20% and 15% of the employees time to be spent on daydreaming. For those of you that are still not convinced, I'll lay down the economic benefits. 60% of all lost days can be contributed to stress and a good 75 – 90% of visits to the doctor are as well. It also makes it difficult to hire and maintain quality employees when stress is overwhelming. "Employees under stress may make more mistakes, have trouble concentrating, become disorganized, become angry or just stop caring about their work." When considering the above factors for absent employees, extra health care cost, and reduced productivity, stress costs US employers about $200 billion dollars yearly to fix. Through encouraging creative thought and reducing the impact of stress and other undesirable factors, daydreaming actually increases productivity. It is also economically beneficial to allow time in the workday for employees to let their minds wander. I hope that my opponent resumes the argument next round. My sources are as follows: http://online.wsj.com... http://www.associatedcontent.com... http://www.fdu.edu... http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Daydreaming at the workplace is harmful to productivity.

Thank you for proposing this debate, it seems to be a very interesting topic. Before I start debating my side, I'd like to clear a few things up. First, I'd like you to address whether we are debating daydreaming or personal affairs. I prefer to stay on the topic of daydreams since that is in the name of the debate and "personal affairs" is such a broad topic. I accept the proposed definition of a daydream but would like to clarify what is considered a personal affair if that is also part of the discussion. Next, I would like to set a daydreaming baseline so that we are both clear on the extent of daydreaming that we are arguing. Since you claim that "an employee that has spent a month at work will have undoubtedly spent hours of his time focusing on matters irrelevent to their tasks," I would like to establish a working month as a standard work week of 40 hours times 4 weeks to get 160 hours as a standard work month, give or take a couple hours. How much of this time period is considered "wasted" to daydreaming from your perspective? Are you proposing 4, 6, 8, or 10 hours a month? With that out of the way, my stance is that daydreaming does not decrease productivity in the work place, but can actually serve to boost productivity. Of course, one cannot spend the whole work day in such a state but a good 4 or 6 hours a month can do a great deal of good. I will offer support for my claims in the next round when the above issues have been agreed on.
Daydreaming at the workplace is harmful to productivity.

The premise for my argument that daydreaming not a wise use of time is that daydreaming is a waste of resources. We are not merely talking about people who spend their coffee break pondering the events of their lives, but employees spending valuable time from the work day to address personal affairs. In the long-term, an employee that has spent a month at work will have undoubtedly spent hours of his time focusing on matters irrelevent to their tasks. To fully understand how businesses are harmed by this, we must first examine the scale to which this is occuring. A 2008 estimate puts the number of employees using time from the workday for non-related activities at around 70%. Of these, 30% use their time conducting personal business. This means that about 21% of employed people use company time for private use. http://www.salary.com... According to Merriam Webster: Daydream- –noun 1. a reverie indulged in while awake. This is professional time being wasted for personal means.
god

=Defense="then why does he not make him self seen?" Why would he make himself seen? Remember in most religions, our time on Earth is just a test for our afterlife. If God was to show himself, than we would not do evil acts out of fear and thus could not have proper judgement rendered on us.Voters:Spelling/grammar: Vote Pro, because my Opponent made a huge amoung of spelling and grammar mistakes.Arguments: Vote Pro, because my Opponent did not refute or even attempt to refute any of my arguments. Sources: Vote Pro, I actually used sources.Conduct: Tie, we both had fine conduct.
god

if all what u jus posted is supposed to hold water, then why does he not make him self seen? no, not via a select chosen few (prophets) but us everyday. why hide? why does man have to explain what we dont know and cant describe have to give credit to a god? why cant it jus be? its easy to say what god has done for u (not u per say) but u cant say what god has done for others. if there was a god i'd rather go to hell for something i am then to go to heaven for something im not.
god

so lets jus say there is one and we are supposed to be his children, why would a parent let their childern suffer? why does there have to be a higher power? many ppl have predicted the end of the world but no dice. how can god be disloyal to his own creation? why? if god was here little girls and boys would not get raped. as humans (childern of god) we would have equal everything. we all need the same thing to survive, food, shelter, love, air, water,etc. but a gangster/criminal can have more than a person that does actually goes to church. yeah right.
Spiderman could beat Predator in a fight

Predators are the ultimate killing machines. Almost nothing can kill them. In Predator, the human doesn't even kill him. he blows himself up using his bomb. In Predators, all the predators die by either explosions which kill the person who caused it, and other predators. (AvP doesn't count as myhtos) Spider Man has enough trouble with Green Goblin, The Lizard, and Doc Ock. All of which could be easily defeated by a predator. We even saw the outcome of a predator coming to an urban area in Predator 2, in which he caused some serious damage. Predator could beat pretty much any superhero in a fight, Spider Man is certainly no exception.
Spiderman could beat Predator in a fight

Here's another one, the kicker: Spider-Man is an open combat fighter. It has been proven throughout the predator series that the only real way to fight a predator and not be obliterated is to cover yourself in mud and hide. Spider-man can't hide & fight, he's not a stealthy person. Predators have like a x2 spider sense, where they can detect heat signatures from anywhere. Sure, his spider sense could help him dodge one or two lasers, but try tons of lasers coupled with missiles and spike launchers. Predators are basically unbeatable. Superman could beat one, but only because he's superman.
Spiderman could beat Predator in a fight

Spider man has a major downfall that brings him to a sever disadvantage - non lethality. Now I don't read comics so I'm mainly going off the movies here, but he never really kills anybody. In Spider Man, he dodges a hoverboard and it impales Green Goblin. In Spider Man 2 Doc Ock kills himself because he turns good. In Spider Man 3, he thinks he kills Sandman but didn't, Venom kills Harry, and Eddie Brock is an idiot and kills himself. Predator is a killing machine with no hesitation, while Spider-Man is a teenager who can't kills anyone for any reason. Even if Spider Man did catch a Predator in his web, it wouldn't stop it. It has claws coming out of it's arms, it can get out of webbing. Every other foe of Spider Man could.
Spiderman could beat Predator in a fight

Actually he is able to dodge things at say the rate of a bullet. In the first spiderman movie you see him do matrix like moves to dodge everything the Green Goblin had for him. That includes pumpkin bombs and his glider. Predator does not have "claw hands" he has a device that has claws. Predators cloaking device would be no use here because Spidey would know he was going to hit him every single time.
Spiderman could beat Predator in a fight

Okay, Spider Man may have super strength and stuff like that, but he is not match to an alien with invisibility, a death laser gun, and entire arsenal that fits onto a suit, and claw hands. Not to mention, Spider Man is a teenage nerd, omeone who can barely grasp the concept of talking to women without stuttering like a lunatic. If he can beat a Predator, then a group of soldiers in vietnam armed to the teeth should be able to take out a predator without any casualties. Spider man has spider sense, sure, but that's for stuff like someone about to punch them. A bullet- or rather a laser- would move way to fast for him to be able to dodge it. Predator wins this fight any day of the shark week.
Should people have tasers to pretect them selves

I accept. Resolved: Should people have tasers to pretect them selvesAs PRO, I must argue that people should have taserts to protect themselves while CON will argue they should not. CON goes on to make an argument for why people should be able to carry guns, but guns aren't relevant to this resolution. Insofar as a taser is a gun, all of the arguments he has made here can apply to why people ought to be able to have tasers for protction. CON basically concedes the debate.
Down syndrome is a lifestyle choice!

Life is really easy. Obey God and you go to Heaven. Unfortunately liberal atheist Nazis are finding ways to make everything needlessly complicated. If you repeat something nonsensical over and over again, simple minded people start believing it. A well known example is homosexuals. More and more people believe that being gay is not a choice but something people are born with. Completely ridiculous of course. But we have a bigger problem here. Most people recognize that being gay is just a filthy choice, comparable with choosing to become a hippie vegan or a vegetarian child rapist. Unfortunately only few people recognize that down syndrome is also a lifestyle choice! Down syndrome has been invented by people who are too lazy to study, too lazy to work and even too lazy to wipe their own butts. By acting like complete idiots they avoid scrutiny and get passed all checks in our system to receive free care and free money without ever having to do anything to actually deserve all that. Parents who are too lazy to properly raise their children teach their children to behave like drooling idiots so they no longer have to fulfill their parental duties. No doubt some liberal atheists will start screaming that being gay isn't a lifestyle choice, down syndrome isn't a lifestyle choice and being vegan isn't a lifestyle choice. Fortunately it is easy to prove that down syndrome is indeed nothing but a lifestyle choice! Most people choosing down syndrome are too lazy to have children. But those who do have children, always have children who are also choosing this lifestyle. Not different from hippie parents having hippie children, where being a hippie is also clearly a lifestyle choice. At least until some idiot liberal God mocker starts claiming that all hippies have a genetic disease forcing them to smoke pot. Unfortunately the misconception that down syndrome is not a lifestyle will be hard to fight. Parents having their children trained to behave like drooling idiots will refuse to cooperate because they are simply to lazy to properly raise their children. The solution here is to punish both the parents and the children. All of them should be put to work in labor camps. Also every medical and government program aimed at wasting money on these people should be terminated immediately.
100 Debate challenge 10: THBT Children should be encouraged to own and use phones

An acquaintance is, literally, someone who you know or have met. Does "I'm pleased to make your acquaintance" ring a bell? This definition, which is the right one, extends to people who you have met and regularly talk to on the internet. Such is the case with many children and the people who exploit them. If you talk to somebody regularly, they count as an acquaintance. Okay, how about I use a different source? (Yes, I am aware that this is the last round, but I'm basically making the same argument, with perhaps slightly different statistics. ) "An estimated one in twenty teenage boys and adult men sexually abuse children. " . http://www.childmolestationprevention.org... How many teachers who are teenage boys do you know? This source is clearly referring to males in general, not just teachers. According to this source, the number of female child molesters is so small that it's not even worth taking into consideration. So, let's look at the demographics. There are slightly over 150 million males in the United States as of the time that I am posting this. Let's assume that a mere 80 million of these are thirteen and up. 5 percent of 80 million is. ..4 million! At the least, there are 4 million pedophiles in the United States! Now, if we are to believe a source provided by my opponent earlier, the average child molester abuses around 140 kids. Think about this: there are enough pedophiles in the United States to rape 500 million kids! The danger posed to children is very real. There's no point in continuing to deny this. My opponent has said that parents can simply not allow their kids to have internet access. However, even this will not work. Why? Because, while kids these days are often spoiled brats, their parents often lack willpower. If their kids throw a big enough deal about being denied internet access (and most American kids would in fact want this), then most parents will give in and provide their bratty child with the internet access that he or she feels entitled to. Then again, this logic also applies with phones, so there really is no solution here except to have self-control. I am testimony to the fact that people who have things like a cell phone will sit around like a lazy bum and do nothing but play with their phone all day. As most Americans don't have more self-control than I do, especially not kids, well, it's kind of a given that kids with phones will sit around all day and waste tons and tons of time which could've been spent doing something more worthwhile. Frankly, kids are generally not ready for that kind of responsibility. You say that phones can be used for emergencies, but how often is a child put into a life-threatening situation where there's no one around to let him/her borrow a phone? Unlikely for sure! My opponent fails to uphold his burden of proof.
100 Debate challenge 10: THBT Children should be encouraged to own and use phones

In my last round, I've already pointed out that internet content can be blocked on mobile phones. This round will just be for some direct rebuttals to the statements made last round. I think I've shown that kids having access to police in emergency services in the palms of their hand and right in their pocket is extremely advantagious and makes them safer. ""This (my claim that in between 1 and 5 percent of the population molests children) is fear mongering lies." To back up this attack on my claim, he points out that my source came from a source which was talking about teachers. Well, take a look at this source, which draws its source from a place other than the place Pro cited." Actually the 1 to 5 percent number was originally cited by you and the source couldn't be tracked down. This is number is cited by a website in this new source and it's cited as an estimate by an expert. I can't track down the original CNN transcript it was supposedly cited to. Either way the number is a mere estimate and not the result of actual research. The number should be completely disregarded, it's just a number the good doctor pulled out of his behind as a gut feeling based on personal experience. "By the way, this source says that the vast majority of victims are abused by ACQUAINTANCES. You don't think that they haven't been acquainted with their manipulative abuser on the internet?" This is absurd. Again this is from the source I tracked down used by the author of one of your citations. Using the term acquaintances in the way my opponent is would define the term so broadly as to make it meaningless. In the context used it means close family members or trusted people close to the kids such as baby sitters, teachers and friends of the family. "I mentioned internet because the majority of "cell phones" (such as iPods and iPhones) in the United States these days have internet access. Even if they don't, you don't know who your kid is calling (a lot of parents don't, anyway) and they can get into trouble even without internet if they have a phone." Contacts and internet access can be restricted like I stated in previous rounds. "My opponent has mentioned a single use for them: emergencies. Why can't they ask to use someone else's phone in such a situation?" Clearly one on their side is better then relying on the kindness of strangers who may not be anywhere to be found, especially in smaller cities or country settings. keep kids safe, vote me.
100 Debate challenge 10: THBT Children should be encouraged to own and use phones

"In this world there is no denying all the access to technology kids have. Kids need to be taught sooner rather than later how to avoid online dangers." Teaching is fine. But they won't always listen. Don't you think that most of the high number of underage drinkers have been taught about the risks of alcohol, especially to a youngster? Or course they know! Teenagers are more likely to make foolish and risky decisions, so even if you tell them what precautions they need to take on the internet, many won't listen. And do you doubt that people are out there who are willing to take advantage of children through the internet? How about this guy? http://northbaypoliceblotter.com... Or the 500,000+ internet predators who are online every day? http://m.fbi.gov... Let's face the facts: children often not take the proper safety precautions, and there are plenty of people on the internet waiting to find their next victim. "This (my claim that in between 1 and 5 percent of the population molests children) is fear mongering lies." To back up this attack on my claim, he points out that my source came from a source which was talking about teachers. Well, take a look at this source, which draws its source from a place other than the place Pro cited. http://www.yellodyno.com... I'd hardly call it fearmongering lies. By the way, this source says that the vast majority of victims are abused by ACQUAINTANCES. You don't think that they haven't been acquainted with their manipulative abuser on the internet? I mentioned internet because the majority of "cell phones" (such as iPods and iPhones) in the United States these days have internet access. Even if they don't, you don't know who your kid is calling (a lot of parents don't, anyway) and they can get into trouble even without internet if they have a phone. My opponent has mentioned a single use for them: emergencies. Why can't they ask to use someone else's phone in such a situation? My opponent has failed to uphold his Burden of Proof. I'll give him a chance in this last round to make a solid case.
100 Debate challenge 10: THBT Children should be encouraged to own and use phones

Cell phones keep kids safe. Access to emergency services is in their pockets at all times. Every kid in America can have instant access to police or medical services. This is a safer world for children and one where parents can rest easier at night. Rebuttals 1. In today's world there is just no denying all the access to technology kids have. Kids need to be taught sooner rather than later how to avoid online dangers. My opponent quotes a source saying that 2.5% of people are pedophiles and between 1% and 5% molest children. This is fear mongering lies. If you follow his link you'll see they quote their stats from the source I quote (coming up). That source states that between 1% and 5% of teachers molest children. I believe that's where the 1% to 5% number came from. I'm not sure about the 2.5% number. It looks like they cite their stats for the first 10 or so provided but get lazy with the last 30 or so. So these numbers can't be trusted. http://www.cpiu.us... Upon reading the stats that are cited on that page. It would seem that most children victims of rape and molestation are assaulted by people they know. 96% of females are raped by people they know. Only a total of 1/7 of victims were assaulted by strangers. This means cellphones would not likely be a contributing factor to a child getting raped. I'd say if anything, having a cell phone is a deterrent to a stranger trying to scoop up a kid and rape them. 2. My opponent ha not shown how having a phone causes addiction to porn or social networking and how such addictions would be negative. That being said, a parent does have the capability of restricting access to certain content on the phone and spotting these addictive tendencies early is probably a good thing.