BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
free speech on the internet

Your trivial insults are meaningless. You claim my arguments as rhetoric, When they are not even correlated to each other. You are an hypocritical time-waster, That blames others for your own mistakes, Because you feel insecure about yourself. I came on this debate hoping for a challenge, But all I witnessed was a scared child who kept making excuses, Instead of actually debating. Your record must be fictitious or something, Because I have no idea how you have no losses and all those wins. I expected more from someone of your *record*. Hopefully you take this as a lesson in life, As you have just been embarrassing yourself for the past 4 ROUNDS. Good Luck to you, And I recommend you do some research before hand, So you are comfortable and confident to debate with someone. Never let feelings get in the way of facts, As that is a popular tactic used by many people, Such as yourself. I wish you the best of luck. -P
free speech on the internet

What are you even talking about? I picked pro. I stated my argument and posted links to support it. You haven't done anything to refute my argument. I inquired about possible nuances and asked for articles and you never prompted them. You are the one who has no argument. You have no counter argument. You wasted my time by not reading what I was actually writing and trying to promote. You just sat around quoting rhetoric and then when you realized you messed up you tried to project your shortcomings onto me. Now this is a pivotal moment in your life. You can go back and re-read everything and understand a deeper point people are trying to make or you can sit in your echo chamber repeating things that sound good to you. I'd call you a time wasting troll and expose you for just trying to waste my time for a laugh. That would have some real circular momentum about how exposing people who troll, While an aggravating process, Can still bring light to deeper truths. However, I don't know you're intentions and you might come back with some actual worthwhile thoughts in this last round.
free speech on the internet

It's in response to a video in which The video personality advocates not engaging in debate with anyone who is on the right which he also grossly categorizes as alt. Right. So the overarching subject is free speech and how to tackle people who abuse it. Not if it should be illegal. It's not a legal argument it's a social argument for how to approach people with different viewpoints. I'm advocating to debate people where as the video advocates ignoring people. On a personal note: please read the arguments all the way through instead of just quoting rhetoric.
free speech on the internet

So I've read over your opening statement a few times and I'm not exactly sure that we have to debate. I mean I feel like my argument I was going to open with rehashes a lot of the things you're saying. The only point I feel I need to stress is that a trump supporter getting beaten up because of his political views is still illegal and He can take his case before a court. I've seen a great deal of violence online within the last few years over politics so I'd like very much if you could share that specific incident to talk about it. I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting about the fear of expressing opinions in public streets vs. The internet. So just for the sake of letting my opinion be more well known. I believe even trolls have the right to say stupid provocative stuff in real life and in the streets. My point isn't that you have to but I'm advocating for more people to engage "racist trolls". It's totally within peoples rights to ignore things on the internet but engaging and making them look dumb for saying dumb things should be encouraged. Unfortunately, Race can still be funny. I'm just saying there's nothing wrong with pointing out when it pops up.
free speech on the internet

I believe free speech on the Internet is justified, And fair. Free speech online, Is essentially the same concept as having free speech in "real life". Typing your opinion online doesn't limit your connection to the First Amendment, Nor should it, In any way, Shape, Or form. Now there are limits to what you say online, Same as in "real life" but most of the time, The person does not get punished or disciplined based on what they said online, Versus what they said in "real life". As an example, Lets say I wrote on Facebook that "All Jews should've been killed in those camps" or "Hitler was a hero" as opposed to saying that in "real life". Most of the time you will be harassed or called names in the comment section, In contrast to getting beat up or killed. Another perfect example of this, Was when a Trump supporter said that Trump was a hero, And then getting beat up, And dragged alongside a moving vehicle. A lot of people write their opinions online, Due to the fear and indiscretion they may face in "real life". I do believe there are limits to what you can say, But I conclude that saying how you feel online, Is no different than saying how you feel in "real life". It does not make you unjustifiable, Nor does it make you evil, Nor does it make you irrational, And I postulate that you should have the same freedoms that you do online, In contrast to in "real life". That is my take on the topic.
free speech on the internet

I'm sure that there are actual racists posing as trolls. I could even understand calling these people alt right. I guess my point is how casually you clump all of these different right leaning people into the same category I truly disagree with. Two people can use opposing epistemology to come to the same conclusion. I can truly believe in right leaning rhetoric and debate on that paltform without it being a joke. If a racist is on the internet making racist remarks it should be pretty easy to prove them wrong. It should be pretty safe to prove a racist wrong because of that thick layer of anonymity. If they are hiding behind humor then getting them to admit, Or make obvious, Their a joke is a huge win. It essentially uncovers them through the anonymity. Not engaging in debate will only make more people think it's ok to be racist. so in the spirit of good debate I'm posting a link to my debate. Org page. I promise to be well nuanced. I have a good track record on this site and I'm fairly well disciplined. I'll probably copy paste this as an opening statment. Please just accept the first round and we'll begin our debate on the 2nd. Feel free to make some opening statments if you like. If you find this debate from debate. Org I'll link the video I'm responding to in the comments.
The Death Penalty/Capital Punishment should be eliminated

What do you not get cutie pie? I believe that Ed Koch's piece, "Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life is correct (Koch 2005). We have to have the death penalty for cases of violent murder, multiple murders and serial killers. There is no other choice. Life in prison is not sufficient punishment for the taking of another human life. People always put forward the notion that killing is wrong, in any sense, but they don't want to punish killers. How many killers have been released after relatively short prison terms only to kill again? Koch cites 85 persons arrested for homicide in New York City in 1976 and 1977 who had a previous arrest for murder, six of whom had two prior arrests for homicide, and who one had four previous arrests for murder (Koch 717). How many killers have been sentenced to life in prison, then committed even more murders while in prison, as in the case of Lemuel Smith cited by Koch (Koch716). What can be done with these people? They cannot be reformed. These people are simply evil. They have no respect for human life. They do no appreciate being given a second chance, a chance to repent and turn their lives around. They just go right back out and do the same thing again. Giving them a life sentence in prison gives them a license to kill in prison: they know that nothing more can happen to them. If he commits another murder, or two, or three while in prison - what more can we do to him? If we can't execute him, he is beyond further punishment so he should be executed. Thanks for playing, but you have failed on many levels. 8)
The Death Penalty/Capital Punishment should be eliminated

There are several reason to keep the Death Penalty. 1) The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much 2) It creates another form of crime deterrent 3) Justice is better served 4) Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims 5) It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence 6) DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. 7) Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. 8) It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. 9) It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. 10) It's cheaper then keeping the SOB's in prison.
Princess Mononoke is a great way to describe our environmental problems

This will be my first debate, so if there is anything that I did wrong, or am doing wrong please feel free to correct my mistake. I am trying to learn how to do this still. I will be arguing that Princess Mononoke is a great way to describe our problems with the environment, and how it correlates to our current relationship with nature. Burden of Proof will be upon me to show that it is a great example. And I say great example because arguing if something is great or not is much less opinionated than asking if it is the best. First Round is for acceptance, 2nd for our opening statements, 3rd for rebuttals, and 4th for conclusion. Background: For those of you who have never heard of Princess Mononoke, it is a 1997 Japanese animated epic historical fantasy film, which tells the story of Ashitaka, a young man who is cursed by a demon while trying to save his village. He searches for the source of the demon and finds a place where humans have destroyed a forest, and are planning on killing the forest spirit, who serves as the god for life and death. Note: If you have seen the movie please accept, because I'm not sure how many people have seen the movie. It is a Japanese based film so it is not as popular in America.
crime is linked to mental health

Many people would like to place the blame for people's violent instincts on unstable or unhealthy mental wellbeing. However research has shown that this is not necessarily always the case. Most people who commit violent acts, who are thought to be mentally ill, they may be but their violent acts come from a place of displaced anger or emotional issues. In a study of crimes committed by people with serious mental disorders, only 7.5% were directly related to symptoms of mental illness, according
Resolved: The Actions of the Vigilante Known as Batman are Justified

First off, I apologize for calling my opponent out on the value block, I did not realize he was unfamiliar with Lincoln-Douglas Debate rules. As traditional with LD debate however, I shall keep this final round short and sweet with a few key voters on why the affirmative has won this debate. 1.) Batman saved the city from anarchy. My opponent can argue all he wants about the state of Gotham City when Batman first entered the scene. But there is no denying the horrid possibilities of what the Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul's plan would do to Gotham. While he say a completely corrupt law enforcement agency and department of justice does not constitute anarchy. The implications of such monsters certainly does however. 2.) Batman's methods were highly criticized by my opponent. He said they were to violent. Let me point out violence is only employed by Batman when absolutely necessarily. He avoids it unless he needs to stop a crime. My opponent offered only one instance where this wasn't the case. But let me point out when Batman "brutally dragged (Falcone) out" of his car, he was overseeing drug smuggling, a very serious crime. 3.) My final voting reason is a challenge for the voter as well. Imagine Gotham City without Batman. In fact, imagine a world without the caped crusader. Quite frankly, I can't imagine anyone who thinks that that would be a good place. Batman is a defender of justice and true America. For all the reasons I urge for an affirmative ballot. I would also like to thank my opponent for an excellent and exciting first debate. And also for reigniting my love of George Carlin. Thank you.
Increase taxes on the wealthy

p1- Taxing the rich does not help the economy. While taxes maybe redistributed to provide social welfare, in the long run it does not helps society because the rich would be discourage from investing into the economy. Investing into the economy ranges from giving money to non-profits, creating jobs, and lending money to start-ups. An employed society is what helps the economy.http://www.economist.com... P2- Most of the money that the rich have are hard earned money. Taxing the rich is essentially punishing them for money that they work hard for or for money that they inherited. America strives on work hard and reap the benefits. P3- Taxing the rich will reduce spending because rich people spend more on goods and services in the economy. Buying and selling is what fuel the economy. Less spending by the rich could lead to a continued recession. http://lessonsforus.com... C- There should not be a tax increase on the wealthy.
Increase taxes on the wealthy

P1) Taxes on the rich can help the economy. The money from the wealthy can be used for investments in "education and infrastructure", while allowing lower taxes for the middle class that can promote more spending for the economy. http://www.marketplace.org... P2) The rich have more money to spend in taxes. They are not paying as much as they should. The more money one makes the less taxes they seem to pay compared to people who are not in the one percent. http://www.dailykos.com...# C: There should be tax increases on the wealthy.
Increase taxes on the wealthy

P1- The buying power of the middle class have been declining.http://www.dailyfinance.com... There was a fallacy, red herring, in your argument. The issue at hand is whether taxes should be increase on the rich. By taxing the rich, the government create incentives for many corporations or businesses to fail. This not only affects the rich, but the entire economy. In addition, increased taxes on the wealthy will contribute to business having a higher chance of failing. Also, it encourages those with high income to shift much of the tax burden on those with lower income. For example, consumer prices may be increase in sale taxes. Taxes will be paid by the merchant and then charge to the consumer. http://www.newsday.com... Moreover, the second source that was provided was misread. The rich do not spend more or invest into the economy. Instead, when taxes are raised they alter their spending or investing behavior by investing outside of the country and keeping their money offshore P2- It"s not letting the rich get richer. The rich are valuable and are intelligent people in society. They work and used their skills to earn their money. Increase taxes on the rich does not promote equality either. When you raise taxes on the rich the burden of those costs spread out eventually to the middle class and the lower class. It is unfair that people's morale would be raised simply because the government takes more and more from people who worked hard for their money- this is not fair. The middle class should invest as the wealthy is doing, than stating that it is unfair for the rich to end up making more money. http://usconservatives.about.com... P3- Raising taxes lower consumer spending, and it shift the burden to those that provide services to the rich. For example, in the construction company, a rich family needs a renovation to be done on their kitchen, but they are affected by the tax increase. Thus, this puts the contractor, as well as the people that he was going to employ out of jobs. Moreover, all the people that provide services to the rich will face a decrease in their income because their consumers have less to spend. http://www.forbes.com... The argument about the effects of inflation on the rich is fallacious. The effects of high inflation affects the entire economy, not only the rich. Moreover, increasing taxes on the wealthy will lead to a domino effect. This means that instead of benefiting the middle class and the poor by these revenues collected, raises taxes will hurt the economy. C-Therefore, there should not be a tax increase on the wealthy
Increase taxes on the wealthy

P1) The business the rich make or help make cannot compete with the buying power of the middle class. If there is no one who can afford what a business has to sell then they end up failing. Even though the rich has more money it does not mean that they buy more than the average person. http://thinkprogress.org... The rich end up spending the same as they always do even with a tax increase, in all areas so money is still going to go into those areas anyways. http://professionaltaxresolution.com...... P2) Having the rich get richer does not promote equality either. The rich take advantage of the tax cuts, especially on investments, to just end up making more money. This is not fair for the middle class who cannot take advantage in the same way. The rich have more than enough to pay the taxes comfortably. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... P3) Raising taxes does not lower consumer spending because it actually promotes supply and demand. http://www.minnpost.com... The housing bubble "was first driven by 'high-end consumption'". This is part of "unruly surpluses" because "higher profits aren"t needed for investment in goods production". After 1919 the focus should be on investing and saving. Part of the reason for the housing bubble was Bush's tax cuts as the rich would get into the housing market because tax cuts do not cause an increase in investment. So in any case the bubble started because of the tax cuts. http://hnn.us... Actually the true effect of inflation is on the rich, not the middle class, "tax cuts for the rich just inflate the price of positional luxury goods and hence do not benefit the rich people" http://unlearningeconomics.wordpress.com... As for the middle class having to pay more, they will benefit if "loopholes that largely benefit the wealthy -- like the capital gains exemption, certain estate tax provisions and corporate tax breaks" close. This is because the earned income tax would help the incomes of the poor and middle class by giving them incentive's on saving and working. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Increase taxes on the wealthy

P1-The job creators are not the middle class. The rich are the job creators and the ones that fund the creation of new businesses. A tax increase on the rich means less money will be given to private charities and to the establishment of these new businesses, with more funds instead going to politicians. http://www.balancedpolitics.org... P2- Raising taxes on the rich in itself is not fair. People should be free to use the money that they earned or inherited however they please without government intrusion. America was founded on the promise of equality for all, and raising taxes on the rich does not promote equality- it only divides society. http://www.balancedpolitics.org... P3- Taxing the rich not only prevents the rich from large spending, but it lowers consumer spending. The rich are the ones that are more inclined to buy houses, and raises taxes on the rich will only prolong the housing crash. It can also eventually lead to inflation, and the middle class having to pay the same tax increase that was eventually meant for the rich. http://lessonsforus.com... C-There should not be a tax increase on the wealthy.
Increase taxes on the wealthy

P1) The job creators are the middle class "whose spending encourages businesses to expand and hire" because the middle class is so vast. As far as investments go a study conducted shows the rich still spend the same on investments after a tax increase. http://www.sfgate.com... http://professionaltaxresolution.com... P2) Taxes are not punishing the wealthy. The matter has to do with being fair. It makes sense that wealthy people with a lot more money who "save most of what they earn" after tax increases have to pay more, in comparison with a family that is in the middle class and still has a lot to do with their money. http://www.sfgate.com... P3) The rich will not stop spending money. A study concluded that people who make 500,000 or more a year (which are the most greatly taxed) ended up spending the same amount they normally did in investments and other spending in general. http://professionaltaxresolution.com...
Immortality

my oppponent has refused to rebuttle my arguement in this round. I am very displeased with this considering my opponent challenged me to this debate. in this round i will resort to the chaosphere. in the chaosphere there are eight forms of magick. these are: red, orange, yellow, purple/silver, green, blue, pure, and black magick. through black magick immortality is plausible if magickal rituals are followed.
Immortality

Well in this round i shall disprove my opponents statement about famine. Ever since we stoppped our nomadic ways and we settled down we have been farming look where we are today produce is still immensely populated. We are still alive right. So as long as we are still farming we will still survive. Even if there are immortals. Now a downside i wish you to disprove to me is the overpopulation scenario. lets say an immortal couple have a child and that child is immortal. then other couples do the same and their kids do the same and so on...then evetually noone would die and the Earth would become overcrowded but we wont be able to evolve so we wont have enough space to live on then what will we do? Go to Space? Make more land...its plausible.
Immortality

Immortality might be plausible but the true question is, Is immortality the right thing to do? by making people immortal you devalue life and in the process you make aspects of todays society worse. For example, not many people would like to live knowing that there is undead people stalking the nights, it would create a greater sense of insecurity, especially since as my oponenet stated, you cannot kill vampires by normal means. Also if you do manage to encounter one then what are your chances of survival? slim to none. why? because even if you did have a wooden steak they are faster and stronger than you so there is no chance of you killing them. Now, lets say that immortality was just humans not dying (or even an elongated life span) everyone would just do reckless things because they know they would have more time on this earth. People wouldnt take life seriously anymore. immortality could also cause world wide famine, political unrest and bad economies. how you ask? well the world would be overpopulated meaning urban sprawl, and the more urban sprawl the less agrigulture space thats available meaning less food for us wich would cause Famiine. Famine would lead to wars between people to find the little food left which would put the government in a tough situation, giving them no room to find another solution but start a war with another country with more resourses for the good of their people. Of course this would lead to global conflicts and heck, if you are a cx debater, nuclear war.
Immortality

Immortality is plausible.... If you are turned into a vampire. vampires gain strength, agility, and become more swift through drinking blood. there is one flaw with this particular form of immortality...That is that if their is a shortage of blood or a virus in the bloodstream (like in the show Being Human) then the vampire could die of a more natural cause. a more unnatural way of death wood be murder via wooden stake through the heart or direct sunlight.