BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ODT: Global Warming Has an Anthropogenic Cause

This is for the Offical DDO Tournament I. Full Resolution: Global warming has an anthropogenic cause. We are NOT debating whether it exists, but rather if it has an anthropogenic cause to its existance. Definitions: Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation."[1] Anthropogenic: "Caused or produced by humans."[2] Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect."[3] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure can not be changed in the middle of the debate. 5. In the case of the breaking of any of these rules, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending you original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources: [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]:http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
we would restrict advertising aimed at children

In the case of a Diaper company you cant ask a baby to take off his or her cloths, the most likely wont understand you or wont have the ability to do so, also how on earth could they not have parental consent? they could not have the child there in the first place if they did not. furthermore if they' re doing an experiment that requires babies to wear the diaper these would most likely have to be trained professionals with valid credentials in order to get to that step in the fist place.
we would restrict advertising aimed at children

How is it the advertisements fault of the child gets abused at home? I could understand if they get bullied at school for not having the latest bat man action figure or the latest barbie doll but the child could always express that to their parents and either the parents take that issue up wit the school or just buy the kid what he or she wants to solve the problem. you cant get mad at a TV advertisement for advertising. That's like being angry at a sweater for making you hot in the summer.
The Internet is liberally biased

Pro forfeited thus all my arguements stand. I was hoping for a response. So let's go over contention 1: 1. the internet violates personal liberty such as shoving cameras at celebrities. 2. Websites take issues to the extreme such as gathering for a protest. 3. Certain websites advocate racism such as the mlk.org I provided above. Websites can be hosted by anyone and anyone can put their ideals in it which doesn't necessarily have to be liberal. MLK.org is a websites that insults MLK. http://people.reed.edu... is another example. Youtube is unreliable for the R1 reasons. So for the reasons above and silent is consent vote con. Thank you.
The Internet is liberally biased

Thank you for this debate. Good luck and I hope voting issues would be based on arguements. Thank you. Burden of proof resets on Pro. He must prove the internet is liberally biased. Definitions: Liberal-a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals. Youtube cannot be a reliable source because people can put random crap in it and sometimes it's unrelibable. For example I once searched up how to make an air gun and it gave me instructions and how to make it. I made one and it failed to fire the golf ball. Therefore Youtube isn't reliable. Contention 1: Internet doesn't favor this because: 1. If the internet favors liberalism then they wouldn't be shoving cameras at celebrities. 2. Websites are quite extreme: . http://www.martinlutherking.org... 3. Websties promote racism: . http://www.martinlutherking.org... For reasons above I have proven internet doesn't support rights/liberalism.
Global Warming is not significantly affected by human activity

You have a good argument, and it is truly disgusting what humans are doing to this Earth, BUT they are not the cause of global warming, as I will argue. My opponent spends most of his argument explaining the process of global warming, which I find unnecessary, but at least now all the voters know exactly what's going on. Now, my opponent mentions the greenhouse gases (CO2 in this case) and that with humans, their concentration increases, therefore causing global warming. While humans do, in fact, increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (as my opponent proved), this does not significantly impact the process of global warming. http://upload.wikimedia.org... (I request that the voters take a look at this as well) These graphs clearly show that even hundreds of thousands of years ago, when humans were not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperatures regularly cycled. They peaked about every 100,000 years before dropping back to a minimum. This correlation shows that even without the effect of humans, global warming is a natural process that occurs about every 100,000 years before subsiding once again. It is evident that humans do not significantly affect the process of global warming and it is only a big deal right now because we are reaching a peak (as shown on the graphs). I await my opponent's response.
homework brings more good than harm

I'm not giving you the win here at all, I am saying that in small amounts homework is a very good thing. Now you say that in this context, homework includes lots and little, and I simply disagree with this. I return to my fruit idea, if you eat 40 apples in a day, you will get sick. It is not healthy by any means to eat that number, however an apple day keeps the doctor away as the saying goes. I don't know where you learnt your biology, but too much of anything can cause problems. Fruit is no exception. The statistics do NOT show that students do badly when they are given homework, it shows they do badly when they are given TOO MUCH homework. The bad grades are probably due to the stress caused when teachers set unrealistic amounts of homework. That doesn't mean homework in general is bad, but simply that the teacher has bad judgement when it comes to how much the students can do. Your statistic showed 3 hours a day, and I think that is too much. You claim that the statistics show that homework causes students to do worse, I disagree. Here is an article by a collection of researchers which suggests that homework improves grades (see below). I quote 'Across five studies, the average student who did homework had a higher unit test score than the students not doing homework.' Homework clearly can cause improved grades and worsened grades, but again too much is not helping anyone. You could easily say: 'Well if a student was set 10 hours of homework a night he would do worse than someone who wasn't set any' it is very obvious. 10 hours of homework is insane and of course would exhaust the student. However claiming that because 10 hours of homework inhibits development, homework in general is bad is nonsense. Your story of how homework destroys student-teacher relationships sounds like nonsense to me too, and unless you can prove this actually happens I don't believe you. It seems incredibly far fetched, and I think dropping out of school would result from a range of things, personal and non personal, and we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that homework is to blame for everything a student feels in his years at school. Maybe kids will copy homework, and we have a duty to try to minimise that, but this doesn't mean homework in general is useless. Many studies suggest teenagers still do better as is in the citation below, and so even if they do copy, they still do better anyway. Also just because students don't like homework, that doesn't mean it isn't good for them. Students don't tend to like eating their greens either, would you get rid of them too? Besides which I doubt students like school in the first place, but they must go nonetheless. Homework is an excellent way to make people more knowledgeable about the world around them, which is exactly what we need if we want to overcome the complex problems of renewable energy and climate change we will be faced with in the years to come. It thus causes far more good than bad in spite of the fact that some schools misuse it and set too much. http://www.sedl.org...
homework brings more good than harm

You are basically giving me the win here. You say that homework does more good than harm but too much homework is not good. In this debate, my setup is that every homework, little or much is counted as homework. Rather than stating a proper point to support your case, you basically rebutted everything I said in the absolute wrong way. Too much homework is not good, which means little homework is good but what point is there in giving homework? Like I said previously, students end up cheating and copying their classmates' homework. Then, you mentioned that I failed because the statistics were based on poor grades and not homework. Let me ask you a question. What was the main purpose teachers' had when they gave homework to their students? It was so they could learn from there and improve their knowledge on a certain topic. And why do this? To ensure they get decent marks in their examinations. So if a homework is given, and like the statistics have proved, is causing the downfall of students, not bringing them anywhere but rather dragging them down, then what is the point of giving homework anyway? By the way, fruits when eaten a lot does not make you sick, but because it is healthy for your body, if it makes you unwell, it means your body is just processing and the illness would not last long. Students do not like homework. You yourself mentioned that, so if you yourself admits it and decide to go on my side, then what is the point of having this debate in the first place? Homework also causes the psychological harm to children and teachers. Firstly, maybe a student is involved with other activities that occupy his time. We all can relate to that. Another student, has all the time in the world to complete his homework. The next day, the teacher scolds the student who does not complete the homework as she does not know his or her background, like why they could not complete the homework and praises the one who completes the homework. This makes teacher grow far apart from the student who does not complete the homework, thus, he struggles as the teacher does not teach him properly and underestimate him just because he cannot complete the homework the teacher gave him but because of reasons that are actually true. Secondly, this increases favoritism. How? A teacher likes the student who completes the homework and treats him well compared to the rest of the class. Then, the class is broken down into divisions. Examples are the ones who are smart, the ones who are dumb, the hardworking ones, the dumb ones, etc. Why is this? All because of the homework the teacher gave them. This is an unhealthy bond for the students and they could eventually drop out from school because of what? Homework!
homework brings more good than harm

It would be very helpful if you could cite the study that you claim refutes my point, anyone can claim a study said this and that but without a citation it is meaningless. I'm assuming you are referring to this study (See citation at bottom of page) which conducted on just over 4,000 students showed that there is a correlatory link (not causal!) between poor grades and homework. What you fail to mention is the mean number of hours of homework per night in the schools used was 3.1 hours. 3.1 hours every single night. Now I'm not claiming that this amount of homework is appropriate, and I'm hardly surprised kids are doing worse with those ridiculous numbers. The amount of stress from that would be ridiculous. However the person that led the research did cite prior research that said roughly 2 hours a night is much better, and never once implied that there should be no homework, but rather less of it. This debate is 'homework brings more harm than good', and I would fully agree with you if this homework is coming in at 3 hours every night. However this doesn't not mean homework does more harm than good. If you eat too much fruit you'll get sick, that doesn't mean fruit is bad for you. If Chinese students are staying up all night doing homework then that should stop too! However this is again steering away from the topic on debate which I will repeat 'homework causes more harm than good'. It is NOT 'Too much homework causes more harm than good'. Your choice of words was what drew me into this debate, and so I wont be debating the amount of homework. Students may not like homework, however it is their responsibility to learn. I think that the current syllabi that students learn now are too big to be fully learnt in the classroom, unless school hours are greatly extended. If we were to remove all homework, students would either need an extra year to make sure they actually know what they have been taught, or will need to stay at school to the end of the day making sure they have learnt it. At this point we might as well give them some exercises to do. Although anecdotes mean nothing in debate, I happen to have gone to both a state and a private school, and so experienced a varied level of teaching, and one of the biggest differences I noticed between the schools were the amounts of homework. The schools with the best results set more homework. This doesn't mean 3 hours a night, but it means more than most other schools set at the moment. This debate asks us if homework causes more bad than good. Now if set in enormous portions yes it can, but the same can be said of anything. Homework very likely is good when set in moderation, and this extreme response with 'homework causes harm because you can see negative effects when in excess' is a total leap of faith. I suggest you find a study showing small amounts of homework cause harm before declaring homework in general as causing more harm than good. http://news.stanford.edu...
homework brings more good than harm

A study by a group of Australian researchers found the average scores of relating to students" academic performances against the amount of homework dished out at the end of the school day, showed clearly that when more time was spent on homework students were getting lower scores. The research clearly suggested that placing too much homework can cause lower grades and even lead pupils to begin suffering from depression. Therefore, you can give whatever statistic you want but we are basing this on the majority of students and not specific individuals. Homework causes stress but is is just an excuse to be lazy? How sure are you that homework this days are taking so little time? It may be true for you, but again its not about you. It is about the majority of students. Chinese school students especially stay up until 1 in the morning just for the sake of doing their homework which brings me to another point. What point is there in giving homework if all the students are just completing it for the sake of doing it and not for actually gaining the knowledge as you mention? At the end of the day, students will copy off homework from another friend's one and do it for the sake of doing it. What point is there?
homework brings more good than harm

I think that homework reinforces information taught at school, which is extremely valuable when it comes to exams, and even later life. I had enormous amounts of homework at school, and so did well in my exams, and I'm very grateful for the knowledge I now possess because it was hammered into me through homework. It does increase stress, but think that really is just an excuse to be lazy, as homework nowadays takes so little time that I doubt it prevents people playing video games or watching TV etc. Homework is valuable for forging a productive, clever, society from our younger generation that in turn improves the lives of everyone who benefits from cars, computers, medicine, and various other things that are only accessible because of their creation by people who know what they're talking about i.e those who learnt from their studies by consolidating the facts outside of the classroom.
Public forum superiority.

Read before accepting. Failure to adhere to these rules results in a complete forfeit, with 7 points being awarded to the pro side. Resolution: Resolved: On balance, Public Forum debate is a more useful form of debate than either Lincoln-Douglas or Policy. RulesDefinitions/RA are both open for debate. Con must provide at least one offensive argument. This is for personal preference, because I really don't enjoy one sided debates. Con must choose whether they are arguing in favor of Lincoln-Douglar or Policy debate. No semantics, lawyering, trolling, etc.
Etymology and earlier usage The word Scientology is a pairing of the Latin word scientia ("knowledg

Double, double, toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble. Pour in sow's blood that hath eaten her nine farrow; grease that's sweaten from the muderer's gibbet throw into the flame; finger of birth-strangled babe, ditch-deliver'd by a drab; Make the gruel thick and slab, like a hell-broth boil and bubble, for a charm of powerful trouble. When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightening or in rain? When the hurlyburly's done. When the battle's lost and won. That will be ere the set of sun. Where to meet withMacbeth? By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes. So foul and fair a day I have not seen. A drum, a drum! Macbeth doth come. All hail, Macbeth! hail to thee, thane of Glamis!
Etymology and earlier usage The word Scientology is a pairing of the Latin word scientia ("knowledg

Resolved: That the word Scientology is a pairing of the Latin word scienti ("Knowledg The resolution is an incomplete fragment, but I will assume it was meant to be: The word Scientology is a pairing of the Latin word scientia ("knowledge", "skill"), which comes from the verb scīre ("to know"), and the Greek λόγος lï¿½gos ("word" or "account [of]"). As stated in my opponent's argument. The numbers and symbols of course represent characters that do not exist in this font. My opponent has taken the Con position, meaning he is arguing that this statement is false. I argue that it is true. I cite the information that he copy-pasted from Wikipedia as my evidence. The full page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org... Resolution affirmed.
Conspiracy V: American Airlines Flight 77

My apologies for forfeiting...I'm sorry I accepted this debate without considering my upcoming time restraints very well...I tried to post Rd. 2 without having much time at all and it didn't work well....I don't have time to finish the debate due to a friend visiting and I am also travelling immediately after that. Sorry for the inconvenience to you...the debate was too interesting for me to resist...I really enjoy the topic.
Conspiracy V: American Airlines Flight 77

The proposition on offer is that on 9/11/2001, AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon in a manner consistent with photographic and computer generated evidence. Again - a opening volley: 1) Hani Hanjour was a poor pilot. Here's a quote from his flight instructor that granted him a commercial pilot's license in 1999: "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot... There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." I'm not sure what "experts" you consulted to determine this 270 degree spiral claim. Pilots do it frequently when they need to land on a different runway that was originally intended, or are flying a flight time that forces them onto an inconvenient (geographically) runway. It would be child's play to program the autopilot on a relatively modern 757-200 to execute the maneuver and then resume control when the plane was close to its destination. 2) The plane appeared to "magically" disintegrate. There is wreckage ALL OVER in photos that were taken before the cleanup started. If you take the time to actually look closely at the photos, you can see all sorts of debris - engine parts, wheels, aluminum pieces, burnt corpses... The pentagon is made of masonry, concrete, steel, brick, and wood. Where'd all the aluminum come from in the wreckage if not a plane? Where'd the aircraft components come from? Also, from the nature of the Pentagon's construction, much of the debris would be inside the E ring and between the D and E rings, not on the exterior of the building, where most of the pictures are taken from. 3) There is not enough debris on the lawn for it to be a 757. As mentioned above, much of the debris would be inside the building. Furthermore, when a aluminum plane meets a concrete wall, the airframe shatters (not disintigrates...) and produces a debris field like this: http://www.911myths.com... I await rebuttal. AFFIRMED.
Viruses are Living organisms

Your argument of movement involves in and out of the cell. Once the virus is inside the cell why would it move out? All it will do is affect adjacent cells, which is what that reference mentions. Your argument in reproduction is flawed. What the virus does is copies it's DNA and then injects it into the DNA of the cell (nucleus). When that happens the DNA in the nucleus will undergo a mutation which in turn will give rise to other viruses. Your argument on stimulus does not cover or reflect on what i have mentioned. What i said is that a healthy cell responds to stimulus. If the nucleus is being hi-jacket and a foreign DNA (viral DNA) then the cell becomes a virus in turn. Its DNA gets overwritten by the viral DNA. See my logic? Energy is the outcome of nutrition. I said they need energy in order to replicate (DNA replication). That requires energy due to all processes requiring energy. Therefore what the virus does is it harvests the energy from the cell. Look at my reference. Excretion argument can be further developed. If the energy harvested is being used or allocated towards DNA replication, and since not all processes are 100% efficient, some excretion or waste (energy waste such as heat) can be generated. Growth. . i will keep it simple. All animate objects (or capable of creating/multiplying offsprings) must grow.
Viruses are Living organisms

Movement- I don't know why you think they can move themselves, because they can't! (0)Reproduction- It does reproduce by sexual or asexual reproduction, which are the only types of reproduction that organisms can do! I understand reproduction, which means I understand that viruses cannot and do not reproduce!!!(1)Stimulus/Response- You have failed to prove that the virus responds to the environment.Nutrition-They do not need energy, the cells they have invaded need energy. As the virus and the invaded cell are different, the virus does not need nutrition.Excretion- This point is based off the nutrition, as Pro said in their argument.Respiration- You are merely making claims. They do not undergo any respiration, or any metabolism at all. (2)Growth- They don't grow or develop, you are again simply making claims.Evolution within Host The viruses do not adapt and evolve, they just have specific protein coats!Viral Evolution between Hosts This has no basis and does not even make sense to me.(0)-http://kdshives.com...(1)- http://biology.about.com...(2)- http://www.prism.gatech.edu...