BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites.

Thank you for debating me. I wish you the best of luck. Now to refute your points.Your first argument was: Ppeople who are 13+ should be able to use SNS to contact family members and friends, because it is faster and more cost effective.If you are looking for an SMS service there are multiple alternatives which are not dangerous or threatening to children. You can use Apple's messages service or Kik as oppose to a site like Facebook. Social networking sites can be a dangerous realm for those under the age of 13. There are vulgar conversations and dangerous individuals such as child predators. A much more secure alternative is a service such as apples messages which is free for individuals using wi-fi.You second argument was: Twitter allows you to gain fast, brief, honest, and concise opinions quickly. Why is this important. You can gain concise opinions by asking friends or family members. Twitter and other social networking sites are unnecessary and pose a legitimate danger to children in this day and age. These risks include: Hoaxes, Social engineering, Identity theft, Phishing sites. etc. For more info visit. (http://blog.lifestore.aol.com...)Your final argument was: People who are 13+ can be just as mature and can use it just as effectively as people who are older. Age shouldn't be the deciding factor here.Unfortunately Social networking sites have no way of judging ones maturity and age is still a good indicator of age. Therefore they recommend those using the site be a certain age. Judge Julian Mack who wrote the book Juvenile court (http://www.jstor.org...) Stated that "juvenile justice was based on the belief that young people do not always make good decisions because they are not mature, but this means that they can be reformed more easily than adults" These young impressionable children should be kept safe from potential dangers until they reach a more mature age over 13.Thank you and I look forward to your response.
People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites.

((Now, for the sake of my own cross-referencing and the fact that it took me a while to write this up; I'm going to use the arguments I used for my other debate (version two) on this topic. )) Contention One: ConnectivitySNS such as Facebook allow people immense amounts of connectivity with people and places around the world with an almost instantaneous effect! This easily beats phone lines for speed and as a result; it is only unavailable if the person is not online. With modern mobile phones; people can be notified now, too. And it is probable that Internet speed will grow faster than mobile phone speed[1]. So, people who are 13+ should be able to use SNS to contact family members and friends, because it is faster and more cost effective. Contention 2: It's a tool to be used! This applies to the Internet in general but can be applied to SNS, too. Twitter allows you to gain fast, brief, honest, and concise opinions quickly. Why should this be limited to people who are 16+? People who are 13+ can be just as mature and can use it just as effectively as people who are older. Age shouldn't be the deciding factor here, because otherwise we advance into the correlation equals causation fallacy. In this case, it is age equals maturity. While this is true to an extent, we are dealing with a close age range here and thus need more evidence than a general trend. I believe I shall leave it at that for now and will await my opponent's opening contention(s) and refute(s)! Until next round!
People over twelve should be allowed to use social networking sites.

Hello, everyone!There is an opinion question about this issue and due to its interesting outcome I have decided to start an open debate on it. But before we continue, allow me to clear up the resolution to help avoid any tedious semantics.So, what does the resolution mean? It means people who are 13+ should be allowed to have accounts social networking sites (SNS). Now I do not mean unconditionally; I mean with restrictions from parents or guardians. These restrictions will vary and are largely irrelevant, but I hope this serves to clear up any misconceptions about the resolution. By social networking sites, I mean - and only mean - sites that fully meet the following criteria:i) A site where one has to make a profile to make interactions with users.ii) A site where people can form relationships. (I don't mean "love" relationships alone, although these are included)iii) A site where one can legally make an account at 13 or older.Now that's out of the way, I will continue with the rules:1) The first round can be for acceptance only. If it is, then the debate will continue normally; if Con wishes to use the first round to make opening contentions, however, Con must put - and only put - "No round posted here as agreed." in the fifth round.2) The burden of proof is shared.3) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters consented.4) A forfeit of a round (for any reason) is a forfeit of conduct; a forfeit of a round is only a forfeit of conduct.I believe that's all, so if anyone has any questions, please post a comment! Good luck to all and allez!
Resolved: Failed Nations pose a greater threat to the US than stable nations

Resolved: failed states pose a greater threat to the United States than stable nations First let us define the terms failed states: a state that is unable to maintain it's territorial sovereignty or that is torn by civil strife and is unable to sufficiently administer it's government without large amounts of foreign aid or intervention Examples include but are not limited to Afghanistan Iraq most central African countries nations that are close to but have not yet actually failed include but are not limited to Mexico Pakistan Stable Nation: one that is stable able to administer their laws and has some form of standing in the international community and maintains it being the most powerful force within its borders Examples: China Iran North Korea United States United Kingdom The have so far accumulated one single powerful and compeling point in negation of this however it requires the understand that "Wars between nations in the 21st century will not be fought on the land air or sea it will be fought in the hard drives and pocketbooks of nations" Proof of this can be seen in when Russia invaded its neighbor Georgia. Three days before Russia invaded they used a massive cyberattacks to baiscally shut down Georgia they stopped public services air traffic and even credit cards a further example that future warfare will be economic can be seen during the Yom Kippur War where Isreal received significant U.S. aid in response the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC) consisting mainly of Arab states placed an embargo on the United States by consequence the United States quickly pursued peace because the United States ECONOMY was unable to withstand such a blow The most present and looming danger right now however comes from China they pose little military threat because (depending on who you believe) we consume 1/3 to 90% of their exports and they would be unable to stop their economy from going under when up to 90% of their products just start piling up in warehouses but China has significant capital and the potentinal for even more since they can extort from their people without risking major backlash this would allow them to start buying the American economy piece by piece such as the auto industry which is up for grabs right now or moving on the healthcare industry and once the Chinese control how much everybody gets payed and who has jobs they control everything I mean at that point there will be nothing to stop them from saying "vote how we want you to and if you don't we will fire you all" That is my case in a nutshell I mean don't get me wrong significant threats do come from failed nations and terrorist cells however ultimately gains made by these groups cannot be sustained or made permanent by contrast we face a complete loss of American sovereignty if a nation such as China or India decides to move against us economically. Please respond quickly P.S. Don't be complaining about my grammar or punctuation I know it sucks get over it
THW give Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants

Hi, My debate will be focused on a recent issue, illegal immigrant amnesty. For this debate, I will be affirming. I will be arguing why we should grant illegal immigrants amnesty. The negating will answer why we should not. A few terms- 'THW'- This House would 'Amnesty' - Amnesty for illegal immigrants is defined as a governmental pardon for violating policies related to immigration. 'Illegal Immigration' The process of migrating to another nation without any form of valid documentation, and crossing the border anyway. Each round will have 6,000 words max. We will have 4 rounds, each 24 hours to respond. At the end, there will be a 3 day voting period. Open voting is allowed. I look forward to debating with you
The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ Historically Occurred

Read all instructions for pre-acceptance requirements. Last opponent did not and garnered an automatic forfeit. This debate is over whether Jesus, a Judean individual in the first century, rose from the dead historically as recorded in the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is not a spiritual resurrection or one of a new body, but instead one in which Jesus' body which he died in physically was resurrected as depicted in Luke 24:39 and John 20:27, complete with the wounds in his hands and feet. This is centered around historical evidence. I will not say nonsense like "people don't just rise from the dead; it's scientifically impossible" if my opponent doesn't resort to "God did it. "This is also separate from a question of God. Jesus rising from the dead may have been a miracle from God, or it may have been a physiological abnormality. Undisputed Pauline Epistles are the only sources to be used as by the hand of Paul himself. Round SpecificationsRound 1 is for acceptanceRound 2 is for opening arguments onlyRound 3 is for rebuttalsRound 4 is for counter rebuttals and conclusions only. (i. e. Counter rebuttals cannot address material brought up in Round 4, only material from 3)Debate Specifications 1) I expect a high level of education in my opponent on this subject. This includes knowledge of:-Disputed Pauline Epistles (Does not need to accept that they were not written by Paul)-The Synoptic Problem and Acceptance of the Two-Source Theory OR Farrer Hypothesis (Including Q and Markian Priority). I will be operating under Two Source assumptions but will change if my opponent is more accepting of Farrer. -Dispute over traditional authorship of the Gospels (Does not need to accept they were not written by the traditional authors)-Textual Criticism (Needs no stance on specific texts)2) Only undisputed Pauline epistles are to be used as written by Paul3) Use Proper Sources - This is up to the discretion of the debaters, but they should be well-respected, peer-reviewed authors, professors, and researchers with a PhD4) Comment in the Debate before acceptance to discuss the rules and any ambiguities. This includes affirming the rules and clarifying whether Farrer or Two-Source is to be used. Acceptance without commenting is an automatic forfeit
you should get more hair

Great. Now you're a hypocrite too. You're so ugly that you could raise the dead. Knowing this, I brought out Shakespeare and asked him what he thought of you. He said, "I'd goeth to insult this person's horrific visage, but I believe his inferior mind wouldn't be able to comprehend." You're probably too dumb to understand what that means, so let me spell it out for you. You're an ugly idiot who's a disgrace to every person who pretends to love you out of pity.
you should get more hair

If I wanted to take out my anger on someone who would amount to anything I would never get mad at you. also your mom called she said she was looking for a walking talking butt also known as Cameron. so you think I'm pathetic, well you ever wondered why your hair is curly. well, it's trying to go back into your head so it doesn't get seen with you. you're so pathetic that if I were to sum up your life in one word it would just be shame.
Why is it that cripples get wheelchairs and at school I can't get a swivel chair most of the time!!

What he said: Wheelchairs are in no way a punishment. Who wouldn't admire an extra set of wheels? It's better than just not having a wheelchair. Counter: how would you feel if you could not walk. That is the persons "punishment" for breaking his legs useless. (Unrelated: send him my condolences, its painful to completely destroy your legs) What he said: They need those wheelchairs to get around? I say no way! For example, when I am on the slide I do not need any legs. I just slide down the slide and then I get to where I want to go. So, you don't need legs or wheelchairs or anything. Duh. Counter: Number one, slides aren't installed everywhere, and you need a mode of transportation in school to get to classes. Why they need a wheelchair since their legs aren't functional at the time. Also slides only work when your going down. To get back up you need a mode of transportation, for example legs or wheelchair. But that's not the point of this debate. What he said: Swivel chairs cost more? Pfft. Just take three of the legs off of a normal chair and then put the other leg in the middle. It shouldn't be that hard for chair factory workers to handle !! Counter: If what you are proposing works it would be unbalanced which in schools having injuries due to people falling on the time. Which would lead to some lawsuits from parents. Which would earn more money the school has to pay. Also, a factory worker puts more time into making the chair you proposed. Since it would take longer to build with man power. It would be priced higher than one with less time to make. In conclusion for this more money would be spent. What he said: Oh, you mean Stevie Hawkins, wheelchair-bound scientist. Counter: Its not "Stevie Hawkins" Its Stephen Hawking (http://www.hawking.org.uk...) Conclusion: Swivel chairs would distract students more than regular chairs. Cripples need wheelchairs because they are cripples. They need it to get around.
Why is it that cripples get wheelchairs and at school I can't get a swivel chair most of the time!!

Wheelchairs are in no way a punishment. Who wouldn't admire an extra set of wheels? It's better than just not having a wheelchair.I don't proprose that we necessarily give wheelchairs to everyone (#lol I'm not an idiot), but swivel chairs would be an improvement.They need those wheelchairs to get around? I say no way! For example, when I am on the slide I do not need any legs. I just slide down the slide and then I get to where I want to go. So, you don't need legs or wheelchairs or anything. Duh.Stephen Hawking? Oh, you mean Stevie Hawkins, wheelchair-bound scientist. Hawkins is really part of the point I was making of what a swivel or wheel chair can do for a person, especially a non-clumsy-oaf.Swivel chairs cost more? Pfft. Just take three of the legs off of a normal chair and then put the other leg in the middle. It shouldn't be that hard for chair factory workers to handle !!In conclusion, I am right and con is an idiot whose opinions should be taken as seriously as a Jehovah's witness and a Cena fan. Thank you.Sourcesnone. (don't need any, you know I'm right)
Why is it that cripples get wheelchairs and at school I can't get a swivel chair most of the time!!

The reason that wheelchairs are needed to help the healing process for legs to heal. Wheelchairs is not a reward, they are more of a punishment in a sense. Since people in wheelchairs can't go up stairs so in my school (I don't know if your school has 2 floors.) and have to go in a different spot to go up an elevator. Wheelchairs are a hassle to deal with and should not be considered a reward. Also, they don't give wheelchairs to everyone since it makes everyday tasks longer. What you said: Really, I think we should flip this situation around. Numb brains like Bill deserve to suffer on second-rate too-small-for-even-the-year-below's-Fred-Valinskis chairs, and normal people who aren't doing anything wrong deserve good chairs that can swivel and double as a vehicle and perhaps even talk Counter: The reason is they need those wheelchairs to get around. If what your saying is happened, the people in the wheelchair have to get up with their not working legs, sit down in the "second-rate too-small-for-even-the-year-below's-Fred-Valinskis chairs" and then after get up and get in the wheelchair. While able legged people got the wheelchair. Also, I see you bring up Steven Hawking. Steven Hawking has neuro-muscular dystrophy. Which means he is paralyzed. He did not choose to be in the wheelchair, he was forced into it.(http://www.ask.com...) Schools don't have swivel chairs is because they cost more. Also, they provide a distraction, an make it less likely to teach students in schools. Now I have a question to further my understanding: Why do you want chairs with wheels so badly? In conclusion: You don't have a wheelchair because you have working legs. Enjoy them while "Bill" Cannot. That's your reward for being a "non-clumsy-oaf"
Why is it that cripples get wheelchairs and at school I can't get a swivel chair most of the time!!

Bill from down the road runs into a tree and really hurts both his legs. So much so that they are completely and utterly and completely useless. Well done, Bill! Here's your reward, a free wheelchair.Meanwhile, non-clumsy-oafs like me go to school every day (except saturday and sunday hehehe) and what's our reward? We get just plain chairs, ones that can swivel are a rare treat.Really, I think we should flip this situation around. Numb brains like Bill deserve to suffer on second-rate too-small-for-even-the-year-below's-Fred-Valinskis chairs, and normal people who aren't doing anything wrong deserve good chairs that can swivel and double as a vehicle and perhaps even talk [1].Thank you.Sources[1] http://yandex.com...
Promoting world wide democratic principles should be a higher priority than promoting sovereignty.

I seem to have a knack for having my responses due at the worst possible time. I'll make this brief. To restate the definition of sovereignty referenced in R1 ad quoted in R2: From the Wiki, "Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory". Basically, sovereign bodies are those with the ability to create laws and keep the peace through a monopoly on force. The USA, Canada, the UK, and other democracies, as well as The main issue is today's debate is the fact that sovereignty must necessarily be established in order or a government to gain legitimacy. For this reason, sovereignty is a prerequisite for democratic government and thus must be prioritized above democracy on the same philosophical grounds that democracy is key to a just society. Voting Issues: 1. Sovereignty and government. Sovereignty must be established in order for any government to have legitimacy, and democratic governments must have recognized authority to alter the law in order to represent the voice of the public. 2. Sovereignty and democracy. Sovereignty is always present within the system of democracy itself, and thus, democracy cannot be upheld above sovereignty even within a democratic system. Democracy holds no legitimate authority without sovereignty, and democracies can not apply the will of the people if they do not have a recognized authority to create and enforce laws. 3. Sovereignty "degrees". As sovereignty is "supreme, independent authority over a territory", states are either sovereign or lacking government. Sovereignty must ALWAYS be maintained and promoted to its full if democracy has any chance of taking hold. Pro's analysis in respects to this aspect of the resolution is flawed. The resolution specifically deals with sovereignty, and as sovereignty cannot be upheld partially, it naturally takes precedence in today's debate. While justice can be maintained through any number of varying degrees of democracy or other forms of government, sovereignty must always be upheld to its highest and only capacity. Thank you for your time.
Promoting world wide democratic principles should be a higher priority than promoting sovereignty.

I'm under serious time contraints so I'll try to make this as consise as possible: My advocacy rests upon two main points: 1. Sovereignty must necessarily established to uphold the validity of the state and to keep the peace, and 2. Sovereignty cannot be partially upheld. By definition, sovereigns have "supreme, independent authority over a territory." Through this we realize that sovereignty is an all-or-nothing game. Only once sovereignty is established, in full, can democracy be institutionalized. This refutes the Affirmative's philosphical arguments through pragmatic reasoning: although citizens should be represented under a just form of government, certain prerequisites must be made before such a government can develop. Sovereignty is one of these prerequisites. Disregard my opponent's assertion that her advocacy maximizes human rights, as I have already stated that sovereignty and democracy are not in direct conflict, under the theory of popular sovereignty. This lack of conflict was not addressed by my opponent. In summary, sovereignty must be constantly upheld, it its full, to prevent the dissoltion of the state. Only once sovereignty is established can democracy take root. Previous contentions addressing the issue that democracy has never spontaneously arisen served to illustrate the point that a sovereign power must be able to keep the peace and regulate the democratic process before democracy can take root. If sovereignty is not upheld, democracy will collapse. Because there is no variant degrees in which sovereignty can be upheld, sovereignty must always be upheld to its fullest, while varying degrees of democracy can produce a stable state (pure democracy, representative democracy, etc). Sovereignty nessecarily takes precedence.
Ice Cream is the best dessert

Support for Con ArgumentsPopularity (or lack thereof) While it is indeed true that this made it on to the top ten list, the fact it doesn't even cross into the top 3 does make me suspicious of the claim it is the "best".Range of Desserts It's hard to pick a top as the king of all with so many around. In fact, this may dispute Pro's claim of it being the best around the world. Think about it. Ice cream is a basic dish, and the history spreads around the world. But just because something is international doesn't really mean that it has any points over anything else.It Melts Pro's argument doesn't really work. Claiming that the fact it melts will stop you from overeating doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, along with eating faster. If you eat faster, you're prone to eat more [1]. Although Pro appears to be speaking from personal experience, this isn't the case with everybody.Opposition to Pro ArgumentsFlavors It can't be denied, ice cream has a lot of flavors. But think about it, many of them introduce more things. Chocolate chips, fruit, etc. This could possibly mean that it needs additional items to be more appealing.Cheaper Not always. Most people buy ice creams already made. You can make cakes, pies, and cookies from home, using inexpensive ingredients and tools you already have in your house. This also gives you a chance to be creative.Ice Cream as an Addition: Isn't it kind of worrying that numbers 1 - 4 use ice cream as a side? If it's the best, how come it's paired with others as just an accompaniment?Sources: http://www.webmd.com...