BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spare the rod, spoil the child.

I've recently been to a dinner/birthday party for a dear friend of my family, and the evening would have been quite lovely if his evil grandchildren weren't there. Seriously, they were total brats. They screamed and fought, pretended to shoot the waitress with imaginary guns, spat at the people sitting at the table, and one of them kept yanking on his uncle's shirt, hitting him, cursing, and saying "I hate you, you're ugly!" And all their mother did was say "Shh, behave." If I were their mother, I would have back-handed them a long time ago. I'll bet they've never been spanked in their entire time of existing. How can she expect them to behave if she never disciplines them?
Cyberbullying Is Not Real

Perhaps I am ignorant for thinking this, so if you do feel so, please take the debate and change my mind. Of course, when I say Cyberbullying is not real, I don't mean it doesn't exist, but as an ideal, it shouldn't. Cyberbullying is very easy to solve. Get off the internet. Why keep talking to the person that cyberbullies you? There's reason for the "mute" button or the "block" button, and in the worst case scenario, you could just turn off your computer and doing something else.
Cyberbullying Is Not Real

Hello! Today I will be debating why cyberbullying exists. I am not saying that it"s a big issue, I"m just debating that it exists. When we define bullying, younger and older people typically have different definitions on what cyberbullying is due to the expectation that bullies are rare. At my school, there are a lot of people who I would define as idiots. I wouldn"t typically define them as bullies because they"re common. But in an adult setting if you see someone like a jerk at my school, you think that they"re a bully because they are uncommon. This idea needs to stop. We need to have the idea the bullies are common in schools so that we have a better chance to stop harassment. Cyberbullying is a more common form of bullying where someone bullies another online. A common example of this is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is an uncommon form of bullying online and in real life, but unlike traditional forms of bullying is dealt with in a similar manner regardless of where it takes place. We take a look at the 4000 people every year who commit suicide because of cyberbullying ands realize that this is an ongoing issue (still overinflated in my opinion, but a notable issue). Cyberbullying can cause a wide range of negative effects such as depression, anxiety, fear, low self esteem, and academic struggles. This is why I believe that cyberbullying exists. Thank you! Sources: https://www.verywellfamily.com...
All Races are equal

//"My arguments remain uncountered, I extend my arguments"// If you would actually read what I wrote, your argument WAS countered and destroyed. It simply does not follow that if the results in that study are accurate that it means people should be separated in to different groups. That study does not isolate mutually exclusive, inherent traits. You have not even attempted to explain why focusing in on somebody's family background is a meaningful enough criteria to place that person in a separate group from yourself. It does not follow that since YOU perceive people as belonging to different races, for whatever reason, that these people actually do belong to different races. On the other hand, my argument actually DOES stand unchallenged because all you have done is describe the chosen criteria you have selected for rationalizing your own racism. At no point have you explained why this is not a completely subjective & arbitrary designation. My argument stands: the concept of race is entirely a matter of opinion, with no real world underpinning, and so all "races" are equal because they do not really exist.
All Races are equal

Your adopted argument fails. The divisions of "races" within humanity have absolutely no basis in objective reality, they are purely subjective. Any PERCEIVED morphological differences between "races" are not actually mutually exclusive -- and therefore an arbitrary dividing line to use -- but are merely a side-effect of the fading cultural tendency to separate into groups based upon appearance. Even the concept of species is spurious at best, the most commonly used (but not only) definition indicates that animals which do not interbreed can be considered separate species but this does not necessarily mean that different species can't interbreed. The dividing line in this case is arbitrary and subjective, as it is with "race". All races may be perceived to not be equal, but they ACTUALLY are because that dividing line does not actually exist.
$tarbuck$. A big ripoff.

In your first rebuttal you have misconstrued my position. I never mentioned a thing about the Starbucks selection. I never mentioned a thing about flavors and variety, but you insist that I have. Read my argument again. The knock in my statement about names of the coffee came from the wacky names they come up with for the coffee. These names confuse the public when generally all people want is a regular cup coffee. In this argument, you come off as being a very misinformed young man. The fact is stocks for the Starbucks enterprise fell through each quarter of the 2007 fiscal year. For evidence read this report and weep for Starbucks. http://www.bloomberg.com... Starbucks is ripping people off, and as you admit they're a big business that does not care about the common folks dollar. For those who chose not to read the article here's an excerpt, "Starbucks raised prices by an average of 9 cents a cup in July, causing U.S. customers who face higher food, fuel and housing expenses to go to McDonald's Corp. and Dunkin' Donuts LLC for cheaper coffee. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is among the few retailers to benefit from shoppers seeking lower-cost alternatives after reducing its prices ahead of the holidays." Things have actually turned to the bad recently so much so that in certain locations Starbucks has even begun to sell coffee for $1, albeit 8oz. cups. Still a ripoff but that's beside the point. Here is another reference for the misinformed, http://biz.yahoo.com... Also, the friendly people at Starbucks don't seem to like their work so much, which pretty much eradicates the notion that Starbucks is the premier location for "human touch" service. Some of these first hand, horrifying experiences of these Starbucks employees will shock the naive type, such as Farooq. http://www.ihatestarbucks.com... Starbucks is such a money mongering business that they had the audacity to deny rescue workers free water near ground zero in the hours and days after 9/11. Despicable! That is just as low as it gets when you think about it. That alone should be enough shut down their corrupt operation. http://www.snopes.com... That small instance is the perfect microcosm for the bloated and greedy ways that company does business. On a friendly note Farooq, it does more positive for you, and the local economies to support local establishments such as the ones in the "Saskatchewan hick town". I worry when I see the next generation of people such as yourself, who do not appreciate the traditional sides of good business. The new generation tends to not see the whole picture due to ignorance. Defending a company like Starbucks in any way, shape or form for any reason is the perfect example. Hopefully this debate may help shine light on the truth about Starbucks.
$tarbuck$. A big ripoff.

Your first arguement in this segment of the debate seemed to revolve around the assertion that Starbucks does not indeed have much coffee selection, but than you contradict your own argument by saying the flavours and variety cannot even be named! I don't even have to negate that arugment- you have already acomplished that for me! The human touch does however actually exist in normal Starbucks, at least so long a business isn't too hectic- and more certianly it is more amplified than in any facotry-style McDonalds or Tim Hortons. It is not perfect, but one of the best nonetheless. People are not paying for the coffee when they go to Staarbucks- that too cheap. They are paying for the creation of jobs that a provided by workers. Now for your next illogical arguement... "Starbucks doesn't care about people like us. All they care about is money." To a degree this is true, but than again maybe with the excpetion of some obscure mom-pop buisness on some Saskatchewan hick town, doesn't this apply to all businesses? The point of buisness is to make money, through what shoudl hopefully, as in starbucks' case, be customer satisfying goods and/or services. "As I stated, your friendly people at Starbucks are ripping people off by the millions around the world daily. If only people would think of that as they sip their frothy latte." Perhaps you may have had a bad epxericne with starbucks, but this hypothetical soul that is enjoying his frothy latte most certainly isn't. People enjoy having the conveince of neighbourhood caffeine stops, the quality of drink, and human touch of serivice. Otherwise there would not be so much incentive to invest in Starbucks' stocks. The rest of the world apparently doesn't agree with you.
$tarbuck$. A big ripoff.

-"You must understand that most countries in which Starbucks operates have economic systems called free markets, in which it is believed that people have the right to "vote", per se, with their dollars for what they believe are good prices for items." Pretty obvious of you to state that free markets allow for uninhibited costumer options. It is a shame that most of their options are the too many Starbucks that flood their neighborhoods. I have actually been inside Starbucks and have seen and heard people talk about being dissatisfied with having to go to Starbucks because of their lack of other coffee options. Half the time people do not even know the crazy names for the coffee that they come up with. Also, it is important to remember that most of the time people order a cup coffee to go, therefore in those cases the "milieu" doesn't really mean that much. Not everyone that drinks coffee wants to sit around and listen to bad folk music while they text message other people in the other Starbucks down the block for 3 hours. And about the "human touch" of service, not happening at Starbucks! Those cashiers are more concerned with rushing you through like cattle so they can get to the customer behind you. The cashiers at $tarbuck$ are trained to do this. It is about production, Starbucks doesn't care about people like us. All they care about is money. The following article highlights, (or lowlights) the greed, and to be frank the despicable global marketing tactics of which Starbacks has mastered. http://media.www.dailytrojan.com... Or if that is not sad enough for you, read this next article released by ABC news about how the people in Ethiopia are getting raped of their resources without their due compensation. Exploitation is abhorrent. http://abcnews.go.com... As I stated, your friendly people at Starbucks are ripping people off by the millions around the world daily. If only people would think of that as they sip their frothy latte.
$tarbuck$. A big ripoff.

You must understand that most countries in which Starbucks operates have economic systems called free markets, in which it is believed that people have the right to "vote", per se, with their dollars for what they believe are good prices for items. Taste is a personal thing, and I am sure that there are many people that prefer Starbucks to McDonalds. There is something about the comforting milieu, the human touch of service, and lack of options at other chains that make people enjoy their Starbucks so much. If Starbucks was ripping off so many people, than why do they have so many returning customers? (you didn't say much so I guess that's all)
$tarbuck$. A big ripoff.

Starbucks is a business like any other, that seeks to certainly gain profit from the citizenries of the countries they operate in. True, they are committed to making a profit, but this is the purpose of all business and does not signify "ripping off". They provide convenience, selection and a pleasant atmosphere that causes many customers to return happily, despite higher prices that some other generic brands. Generally restaurants will always cost more than making directly, specifically when the Starbucks chains have to fund services as well in the form of cheerful employees. Yes it is true the a few New York offices didn't divert material to the 9/11 rescue workers, but this is a moot point because such practices would largely be local decisions made by managers in the area. I myself have experienced first hand the generosity that some locations offer, for when one of my volunteer organizations choreographed a excursion to talk and comfort Vancouver's homeless on East Hastings it was Starbucks along with one other franchise (Tim's) that agreed to help us in our endeavours, despite the numerous businesses we asked of aid, even though they did not even receive any advertising opportunity and no public relations bonuses were received (and why would a local manager care of such things any ways). As Mahatma Gandhi once said "A few drops of dirty water does not mean the ocean is dirty". Surely Starbucks could be substituted for humanity in this argument? As to your assertion that Starbucks is projecting losing money yes this is true, but largely due looming recession, which will hurt them far less than mainstream businesses because they primarily cater to the middle-class, which are able to afford the rather high-priced things. Perhaps you are of lesser fiscal status, which probably means you shouldn't be in business with them. That is fine, but you shouldn't criticise the finer tastes enjoyed by the wealthier. Thank you for this debate.
Gender selection of children

I have been lurking around on debate. org for some time now, but this is my first debate here. Because my opponent hasn't stated an exact resolution, I must assume that he affirms the following resolution: All parents should be allowed to use gender-selection techniques to decide the gender of their future children. If my opponent's only contention is that there are no valid reasons for blocking access to gender-selection, this will be a very short debate. Three valid reasons quickly arise. Contention 1: Gender-selection harms society by enabling gross imbalances in gender. To see this effect, one must look no further than India and China. In 2005, there were 118 boys born per 100 girls, and the number of boys in this statistic is expected to rise. By 2020, it is projected that there will be 30 million more men than women in China (1). As gender selection techniques become more and more widespread, the number of excess men will continue to climb. A lack of women makes competition more fierce and therefore more likely to turn violent. Contention 2: Gender-selection is immoral because it is discriminatory. The decision to kill a human organism for no reason other than its gender is sexism at its worst. This discrimination further violates equality by strongly reinforcing stereotypes. When parents ask themselves "Which do we prefer, girls or boys? ", they are forced to stereotype their future children because all they know about them is their gender. Do we really want to live in a society in which life and death decisions are made with knowledge limited to nothing but gender? Contention 3: Preferential gender-selection easily leads into eugenics. Once parents are given control over one chromosome, why shouldn't they receive equal control over others? Why not let them create designer babies? If a child's gender is a parent's choice, why shouldn't the child's eye color fall under the same category? If eye color should be parents' choice, why shouldn't height? How about intelligence? As you can see, gender-selection based on parents' inclinations is only a short chain of logic from eugenics. Conclusion: My opponent's assertion that there are no valid arguments against gender-selection is clearly wrong; I have just given three. As my opponent has no other contentions, the burden is on my opponent to invalidate all three of my contentions. Again, thank you for starting this debate. I look forward to your response. Source: 1. . http://www.chinadaily.com.cn...
Gender selection of children

There are two new types of prebirth gender selection techniques that I will present: 1. Micro Start-Sperm is "sorted" so that it will be more likely that the egg will be fertilized by the desired chromosome. (http://www.microstart.com...)ï¿½ 2. Genetic Diagnoses-Embryos created in test tubes are analysed before being inserted into the womb. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) I am not arguing pro/for any particular technique, but rather pro/for the option for parents to utilize gender selection. I will allow my opponent to begin as my primary contention is that there is no valid reason why this practice should not be allowed. Thanks to my opponent in advance.
Empiricism

This debate is for the sole purpose of seeing if anyone, preferably an empiricist (popularized by David Hume), can refute this statement. Thank you for your time and enlightenment. Empiricism is wrong for the simple reason that it is self refuting. In the words of Norman L. Geisler: The Principle of empirical verifiability states that there are only two kinds of meaningful presuppositions: 1) those that are true by definition and 2) those that are empirically verifiable. Since the principle of empirical variability itself is not true by definition nor empirically verifiable, it cannot be meaningful" Why or why not is this incorrect?
Tupac vs Biggie who was the best rapper

Pro has FF the following conclusion I have made: 1. He had better delivery. 2. He had truth behind his words when talking about gangs. 3. Was far less supportive of dangerous gang life than 2Pac 4. Subsequently, of 2 and 3, related more to those on the streets. 5. Left a huge legacy in the music industry by creating the producing giant Sean Combs. He also conceded the rebuttals to his arguments, as such is left with nothing.
Tupac vs Biggie who was the best rapper

I accept.Tupac was a better writer.He was not a better rapper.This is incredibly important to note throughout the course of this debate. The two came from vastly different environments and as such are very hard to compare. I do not accept the paradigm of which my opponent determines who is the better rapper. {One who makes you stop and think, as he stated above}Biggie related more to the "simple mind" about the every day struggle of African-Americans living in urban America. Because of his simplistic yet profound way of relating to people about life on the streets he is the better rapper.Also Biggie, had the distinct east-coast, style of voice. The modern-day style of east-coast rap is modeled off of the cool, collected, deep voice of Biggie, which was incredibly unique. This just a preamble to my following rounds.Await my opponents opening statements.
Tupac vs Biggie who was the best rapper

Tupac(pro) vs Biggie(con) who was the best rapperWhile both rappers made a huge impact on the hip hop community individually. It is my opinion that both these rappers were incredibly talented and at the same time influential. Tupacs lyrics in are life changing. What I mean by that is that his lyrics really make you stop and think about life and what is going on in the world around you. Which is why I think Tupac is best rapper of all time. Tupacs voice forces your attention. You can't help but listen to what was being said. Tupac had the sort of style that made you think that what he was saying was coming from the heart whether it was dissing or rapping about world issues.To settle the debate I am picking Tupac as my favorite and I will show everyone why I pick Tupac over Biggie(or any rapper for that matter) and why you should as well.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org....
pornagraphy is good

1) porn improves your sex life You can learn a lot of tips from it and how you can perform better in bed. What is better than surprising your partner with being better and well quite frankly a new intriguing move to make you both reach the state of orgasm? 2) Porn supplies Jobs You say that is degrading to women. Well, it is their choice. Seriously, why do we care if you show your boobs or balls to make money? Who are we to judge. You make an honest living and make quite a bit of money. Without these jobs people may be hobos and live on the street. 3) Porn stablizes the economy :) Porn is estimated to be $13 billion industry. That is a lot of money. That beng said this goes along with point 2 it creates thousands of jobs for recently laid off retailers and autoworkers and all those others that may not have formal or they may have formal educations. 4) Porn helps emotional Health Suppose a man whose spouse has recently died. As yet their grief makes them unable and unwilling to begin dating again. But their sexual drive isn't gone. Or again, consider the traveling businessman with a high sexual drive, self-control problems, and a wife he very much never wants to cheat on. Might he make good use of pornography? I'm arguing that it's clear that pornography makes all these folks more emotionally healthy. M-------------------------------- MY OPPONENT really does have any arguments other than it isn't art. Question was the renassiance art or pornography? The answer is art. The naked men and women were considered art. It isn't considered a perversion until you make it so or in the Rennassiance until the Pope declares it and destroys the art.
pornagraphy is good

Porn is bad because it is degrading to women. It is also in my oppion very discusting. Have you looked inside of a playboy before it is quiet ofensive. Now i get that some of you out there might say that it is art but there is a fine line between art and porn. The naked body is a beautiful thing and god made it that way, but when u have women sticking there fingers up themselves it crosses the line.
Taxes Should Not be Raised on the Rich: Change my Mind

"What if you have super rich celebrity children who didn't work at all for their money? " Please clarify. I assume this would mean child actors, Who are very talented for what they do, And get paid accordingly for their effort and time. "And by the way, Poor work harder than rich in a lot of cases. " Can you give examples? "I believe that the government should take a percentage off of your income. Not a flat amount. I think that we should take a proportional amount of money from the poor and the rich, Even if that means the rich lose more. " Rich are what keep the economy going. Especially business owners. They hire more and more employees and grow their business, Helping the economy and jobs. If money is taken away from what they earned, They can't thrive their businesses.
Taxes Should Not be Raised on the Rich: Change my Mind

Taxes should not be raised on the rich because they worked hard and eaarned that money, And because they work harder and earn THEIR money and are rich does not mean government should steal more from them than anybody else, NOTE: You do not have to change my mind to win the debate. Voters choose the winner on a 7 point system, And who they think made the best arguments, Regardless of whether my mind was changed or not. NOTE: DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE OFFLINE FREQUENTLY. I WANT COMMITTED DEBATERS ONLY. NO FORFEITS.
The costs of a college education outweigh the benefits

Rules:Burden of proof is shared.No new arguments in round 5.Drops are not concessions.Forfeit in any round is an automatic loss. College is defined as "an independent institution of higher learning offering a course of general studies leading to a bachelor's degree." (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) No negotiation on this.Round structure is as follows:1) Acceptance2) Arguments3) Rebuttals4) Response to rebuttals (defending your own case)5) Summary